Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable operation (readOnlyHint=false) that's non-destructive and non-idempotent. The description doesn't add any behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide - it doesn't explain what 'changing status' entails, whether it affects running services, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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 wastes characters on redundant information like '[mongo]' and 'POST' while failing to convey essential purpose. The parameter listing format is somewhat organized but doesn't add value beyond the schema. While concise, it's not effectively structured for comprehension.

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?

For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic safety hints, this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameters mean, what happens when invoked, or what to expect in return. The description fails to compensate for the sparse structured data.

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 carries full burden for explaining parameters. It merely lists parameter names and types without explaining what 'mongoId' refers to (MongoDB instance identifier) or what the 'applicationStatus' enum values mean in context. The description doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's already visible in the schema structure.

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 ('mongo.changeStatus') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being modified (a MongoDB instance/container) or what 'changing status' means in practical terms. This is essentially a tautology of the name rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list includes other MongoDB-related tools (dokploy_mongo_start, dokploy_mongo_stop, dokploy_mongo_update, etc.), but the description doesn't explain how this tool differs from those or when it's appropriate to use. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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