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 no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it doesn't explain what 'move' entails (e.g., migration, relocation, transfer between environments), potential side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. With annotations covering basic hints, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral insight.

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 under-specified—it's a single line with a parameter list, which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. While not verbose, it doesn't front-load critical information about the tool's purpose. The structure is minimal but could be improved with a clearer opening statement.

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 of a 'move' operation (likely involving database migration or environment transfer), the description is severely incomplete. With no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and annotations that only provide basic hints, the description fails to explain what the tool does, its behavior, parameters, or expected outcomes. It leaves critical gaps for agent understanding.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description merely lists parameter names (mongoId, targetEnvironmentId) without explaining what they represent (e.g., IDs of MongoDB instances and target environments), their format, or valid values. It adds no semantic meaning beyond the bare parameter names, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 and title ('mongo.move') without explaining what 'move' means in this context. It lists parameters but doesn't specify what resource is being moved (e.g., a MongoDB database instance, container, or data). This is essentially a tautology of the name/title with minimal added value.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include other 'move' operations (e.g., dokploy_application_move, dokploy_compose_move, dokploy_mariadb_move), but the description doesn't differentiate this MongoDB-specific move from those or explain prerequisites like whether the source must be stopped. No usage context is provided.

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