Dokploy MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't explain what 'saveExternalPort' entails (e.g., whether it restarts services, affects connectivity, has side effects). While annotations cover basic traits, the description fails to disclose operational details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, offering minimal value beyond the structured data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief but inefficiently structured: it repeats the tool name and HTTP method without adding value, and the parameter list is redundant with the schema. While not verbose, it wastes space on unhelpful details instead of being front-loaded with actionable information. It could be more concise by omitting the repetitive elements and focusing on purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a database configuration tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what the tool does, when to use it, parameter meanings, expected outcomes, or error handling. Annotations provide some behavioral hints, but the description doesn't fill the gaps, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description lists parameters (mariadbId, externalPort) but adds no semantics—no explanation of what mariadbId refers to (e.g., database instance ID), what externalPort means (e.g., port number or null to disable), or format constraints. This leaves parameters largely undocumented, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description restates the tool name with minimal context ('[mariadb] mariadb.saveExternalPort (POST)'), which is essentially tautological. It doesn't specify what 'saveExternalPort' actually does (e.g., configure network access, map ports, update settings) or differentiate it from sibling tools like dokploy_mongo_saveExternalPort or dokploy_mysql_saveExternalPort. The purpose remains vague beyond the literal name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. It doesn't mention related tools (e.g., dokploy_mariadb_create, dokploy_mariadb_update) or scenarios (e.g., after deployment, for external access). The description provides zero usage instructions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.