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 minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a POST request, implying a state-changing action, but doesn't elaborate on what 'reload' does (e.g., restarts service, reloads config) or its effects (e.g., downtime, performance impact). It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds little 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 under-specified rather than concise. It includes the tool signature and parameter names, which is structured, but lacks meaningful content. The two lines are front-loaded with basic info, but more substance is needed to be truly helpful.

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 (state-changing operation with 2 parameters), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'reload' means, what the parameters do, or what to expect as a result. Annotations provide some safety hints, but the description fails to add necessary operational context.

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 details. The description lists parameters 'mongoId' and 'appName' but gives no semantic meaning (e.g., what mongoId refers to, what appName is used for). It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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.reload (POST)' restates the tool name with minimal context. It mentions 'mongo' and 'reload' but doesn't specify what resource is being reloaded (e.g., a MongoDB instance, service, or configuration) or what 'reload' entails. Compared to siblings like 'dokploy_mariadb_reload' and 'dokploy_postgres_reload', it doesn't differentiate its specific purpose for MongoDB.

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, expected outcomes, or when not to use it. With many sibling tools for managing MongoDB (e.g., 'dokploy_mongo_start', 'dokploy_mongo_stop', 'dokploy_mongo_rebuild'), there's no indication of how 'reload' differs or when it's appropriate.

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