Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the parameter list—it doesn't explain what 'create' entails (e.g., provisioning a database, deploying a container), potential side effects, or authentication needs. With annotations covering basic hints, the description adds little value but doesn't mislead.

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 concise but poorly structured—it's essentially a parameter list without a clear introductory sentence explaining the tool's purpose. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded information and reads like a schema dump rather than a helpful description. Every sentence (or line) doesn't earn its place due to redundancy with the schema.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema, annotations only cover basic hints), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the creation process, return values, error conditions, or how parameters interact. For a creation tool with significant parameter burden and no output schema, more context is needed to guide 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists parameter names and types but adds no semantic meaning—it doesn't explain what 'name', 'environmentId', or other parameters represent, their constraints, or relationships. For 9 parameters with 0% coverage, this is inadequate compensation.

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 is for creating a MongoDB resource, which is clear but lacks specificity. It doesn't distinguish this from other 'create' tools (e.g., dokploy_mariadb_create, dokploy_postgres_create) or explain what exactly is being created (e.g., a MongoDB database instance, container, or service). The description is vague about the resource type beyond 'mongo'.

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., needing an existing environment), exclusions, or sibling tools like dokploy_mongo_update or dokploy_mongo_deploy. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameter list, with no explicit context.

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