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 (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds that it's a POST request, implying a write action, which aligns with annotations. However, it lacks details on what 'deploy' specifically does (e.g., starts a service, provisions resources), potential side effects, or error conditions, leaving behavioral context incomplete.

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 poorly structured; it mixes tool context ('[mongo] mongo.deploy (POST)') with a parameter list in a non-standard format. While concise, it lacks clear separation of purpose and parameters, making it less readable. It avoids redundancy but sacrifices clarity for 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 (a deployment operation with one parameter), lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the outcome of deployment, success indicators, or integration with sibling tools like dokploy_mongo_create. For a non-idempotent write tool, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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%, and the description only lists 'mongoId (string, required)' without explaining what this parameter represents (e.g., an identifier for a MongoDB configuration, instance, or resource). It fails to add any semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples, constraints, or where to obtain the ID, which is critical given the low 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 '[mongo] mongo.deploy (POST)' restates the name/title with minimal additional information. It mentions 'mongo' and 'deploy' but doesn't specify what resource is being deployed (e.g., a MongoDB database instance, container, or service) or what the deployment entails. This is a tautology that provides little value beyond the tool name itself.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., dokploy_mongo_create, dokploy_mongo_start, dokploy_mongo_stop), there is no indication of prerequisites, typical workflow, or distinctions from related operations. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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