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 (destructiveHint=false), non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false) operation with open-world semantics (openWorldHint=true). The description adds that it's a POST request, implying it's an action that changes state, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral details like side effects (e.g., service availability), error conditions, or performance implications.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it's inefficiently structured as a code-like snippet rather than natural language. The parameter listing is redundant with the schema. It could be more concise by omitting the parameter details 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 tool performs a state-changing operation (starting a database) with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., the MariaDB service becomes active) or failure, nor does it cover authentication needs, rate limits, or dependencies. Annotations provide some safety context, but more operational details are needed for effective 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?

The description lists the parameter 'mariadbId' as required, but the schema already defines it as a required string with minLength=1. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no extra semantic meaning (e.g., what a mariadbId is, format examples, or where to find it). The baseline is 3 since the schema fully defines the parameter, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('start') and resource ('mariadb'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dokploy_mariadb_stop' by specifying the opposite action. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'starting' entails operationally (e.g., initiating a database service).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the MariaDB instance must exist and be stopped), nor does it reference related tools like 'dokploy_mariadb_stop' or 'dokploy_mariadb_changeStatus' for context. The description lacks any usage context.

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