Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-destructive and non-idempotent, with open-world semantics. The description doesn't add any behavioral details beyond these annotations, such as what 'save' entails (e.g., overwriting existing environment variables, merging, or appending), authentication requirements, or rate limits. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the baseline for annotations covering safety aspects.

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 includes a redundant prefix ('[mongo] mongo.saveEnvironment (POST)') that repeats the tool name and adds HTTP method info, which isn't necessary for an AI agent. The parameter listing is minimal but doesn't add value. It's front-loaded with noise rather than purpose.

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 write operation with 2 parameters), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the operation's effect, return values, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader context of MongoDB management (e.g., compared to 'dokploy_mongo_update'). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description lists parameters ('mongoId', 'env') but adds no semantic meaning—it doesn't explain what 'mongoId' refers to (e.g., a MongoDB instance identifier) or what 'env' should contain (e.g., key-value pairs for environment variables). This fails 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.saveEnvironment') without clarifying what 'saveEnvironment' actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being saved (e.g., environment variables for a MongoDB instance) or distinguish it from similar sibling tools like 'dokploy_mariadb_saveEnvironment' or 'dokploy_mysql_saveEnvironment'. This is borderline tautological.

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 MongoDB instance), context (e.g., during deployment or configuration), or related tools (e.g., 'dokploy_mongo_update' for other modifications). This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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