Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't explain what 'save' entails (e.g., whether it updates configuration, persists changes, or requires specific permissions), doesn't mention side effects, and provides no information about error conditions or response format. With annotations covering basic safety hints, the description adds minimal value.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it wastes space by repeating information already in the name/title. The parameter listing adds minimal value without explanations. While not verbose, it's under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

For a mutation tool (non-readOnly) with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the operation's purpose, parameter meanings, expected outcomes, or error handling. Given the complexity implied by the tool name and annotations, the description leaves too many gaps for effective use.

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 only type information without semantic meaning. The description lists parameter names but adds no explanation of what 'mongoId' refers to (e.g., MongoDB instance identifier) or what 'externalPort' represents (e.g., port number for external access, null for disabling). It doesn't specify format constraints, valid ranges, or examples. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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.saveExternalPort') and HTTP method ('POST') without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being modified or what 'saveExternalPort' means in context. While it mentions 'mongo' as a category, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_mariadb_saveExternalPort' or 'dokploy_mysql_saveExternalPort' beyond the database type.

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, appropriate contexts, or relationships with other tools (e.g., whether this should be used during deployment, configuration, or maintenance). There's no indication of when this operation is needed or what alternatives might exist.

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