Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it specifies the HTTP method (POST) but doesn't explain what 'stop' entails (e.g., graceful shutdown, service interruption, or effects on connected applications). With annotations covering safety aspects, the description provides limited additional value.

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 includes a redundant parameter list that adds little value. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameters).

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's complexity (a state-changing operation), lack of output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome of stopping MariaDB, potential side effects, error conditions, or how to verify success, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description must compensate. It lists 'mariadbId' as a required parameter but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what this ID represents, where to find it, or format examples). This leaves the parameter poorly understood despite 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 states the tool stops a MariaDB instance ('mariadb.stop'), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_mariadb_start' or 'dokploy_mariadb_changeStatus', leaving the purpose somewhat vague regarding how it relates to other status management tools.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the MariaDB must be running), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'start' or 'changeStatus' for context.

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