Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent update operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but it also adds no behavioral context beyond what's already in annotations. It doesn't explain what 'update' means in practice (e.g., partial updates, validation, side effects, or response format). With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds minimal 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?

While the description is technically concise in length, it's poorly structured and wastes space on a redundant parameter list that duplicates the schema. The first line '[mariadb] mariadb.update (POST)' is the only content that isn't just schema repetition, but it's insufficient. This isn't effective conciseness—it's under-specification masked as brevity.

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 (32 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the update operation's scope, what happens to unspecified parameters, whether all parameters are optional except mariadbId, or what the response contains. With annotations providing only basic hints and no output schema, the description fails to provide necessary context 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 merely lists parameter names and types without any semantic explanation. With 0% schema description coverage (no parameter descriptions in the schema), the description fails to compensate by explaining what parameters like 'mariadbId', 'databaseRootPassword', or 'modeSwarm' actually mean or how they affect the update. This leaves 32 parameters largely unexplained.

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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name ('mariadb.update') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (a MariaDB database instance/configuration) or what the update operation entails. While it mentions 'POST' which implies a write operation, this is insufficient for purpose clarity.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this should be used instead of other MariaDB tools (like create, delete, or deploy), or any contextual constraints. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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