Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false), not destructive (destructiveHint: false), idempotent (idempotentHint: true), and open-world (openWorldHint: true). The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations—it doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits). However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it's not a contradiction, but it fails to provide additional useful information for a mutation tool.

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 poorly structured—it starts with a redundant line '[mongo] mongo.update (POST)' and then dumps a long, unformatted list of parameters without grouping or explanation. This is not concise; it's under-specified and cluttered, failing to front-load key information. The parameter list adds bulk without value, as it doesn't enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 (31 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, usage, behavioral traits beyond annotations, or parameter meanings. For a tool that updates MongoDB resources in a deployment context, this lack of information makes it inadequate for effective agent 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?

The description lists 31 parameters with basic types but adds no semantic meaning beyond what's in the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema lacks descriptions for all parameters, and the description doesn't compensate—it merely repeats parameter names without explaining their purposes (e.g., what 'mongoId' refers to, how 'applicationStatus' affects the update, or what 'replicaSets' does). This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'dokploy_mongo_update' as '[mongo] mongo.update (POST)', providing no meaningful explanation of what the tool actually does. It fails to specify what resource is being updated (e.g., a MongoDB database instance, configuration, or deployment) or what the update operation entails, making it impossible to distinguish from sibling tools like 'dokploy_mongo_create' or 'dokploy_mongo_deploy'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing MongoDB resource to update), appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'dokploy_mongo_create' for initial setup or 'dokploy_mongo_deploy' for deployment actions. 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.