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, open-world operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as what 'create' entails (e.g., whether it modifies existing mounts, requires specific permissions, or has side effects). With annotations covering basic hints, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral insights.

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, but it's under-specified rather than concise. The parameter list is structured but lacks explanatory value, making it inefficient. It avoids verbosity but fails to convey necessary information, so it's not optimally 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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, non-readOnly operation), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, usage, or parameter meanings, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke it correctly. Annotations provide some hints, but the description adds little to compensate for the missing details.

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 parameters with minimal details (e.g., 'type (enum: bind, volume, file, required)'), but this adds little semantic value beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what each parameter means, their relationships (e.g., 'hostPath' for 'bind' type), or usage examples, leaving significant gaps.

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 essentially restates the tool name 'mounts.create' with '(POST)' and lists parameters, which is tautological. It doesn't clearly state what the tool does (e.g., create a mount for a service in Dokploy). While it mentions 'mounts.create', this is just the name/title restated without explaining the action or resource.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dokploy_mounts_update' or 'dokploy_mounts_remove', nor does it provide context on prerequisites or typical use cases (e.g., when setting up a service).

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