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. The description adds that it's a POST request, implying a state-changing action, but doesn't elaborate on what 'rebuild' entails behaviorally—such as whether it restarts services, reinitializes data, or affects availability. It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides minimal additional context beyond them.

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 identification with parameter listing in a single line. While not verbose, it lacks front-loading of key information (e.g., purpose first). The formatting as a code-like snippet reduces readability, though it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 state-changing operation on a database), lack of output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'rebuild' does, potential side effects, success indicators, or error conditions. With annotations providing some safety hints but no behavioral details, the description leaves critical gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 must compensate. It only lists 'mongoId' as a required parameter without explaining its format (e.g., UUID, name) or where to obtain it. This adds little meaning beyond the schema's type and requirement, failing to clarify the parameter's purpose or constraints.

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.rebuild') and method ('POST'), which is tautological. It doesn't explain what 'rebuild' means for a MongoDB resource—whether it's rebuilding indexes, containers, or something else. While it mentions the resource ('mongo'), the verb 'rebuild' remains vague without context.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the MongoDB instance must be deployed), exclusions (e.g., not for stopped instances), or sibling tools like 'dokploy_mariadb_rebuild' or 'dokploy_mysql_rebuild' for comparison. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.

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