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 doesn't contradict these annotations but adds minimal behavioral context beyond them. It mentions 'POST' method, implying a state-changing action, but doesn't describe effects like service downtime, reversibility, or required permissions. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds some value but lacks operational details.

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 inefficiently structured. It includes redundant information like '[mongo]' and 'mongo.stop', and the parameter listing is minimal without adding context. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on obvious details rather than providing actionable information.

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 with no output schema and low schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the outcome of stopping, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations covering all behavioral aspects and no output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and 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 description must compensate. It lists 'mongoId' as a required string parameter but provides no semantic meaning—what this ID represents, where to find it, or format constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definition, failing to clarify parameter purpose or usage.

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.stop') without adding meaningful context about what 'stop' actually does. It doesn't specify whether this stops a MongoDB service, container, deployment, or process, nor does it explain what happens when stopped. The description is essentially a tautology of the tool name.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the MongoDB instance must be running), what happens after stopping, or when to use sibling tools like 'dokploy_mongo_start' or 'dokploy_mongo_changeStatus'. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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