Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and openWorldHint=true (accepts unknown parameters). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. No information about permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format is provided, but annotations cover the basic safety profile adequately.

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 technically concise but structurally poor. It wastes space repeating 'mounts.update (POST)' which adds little value, then presents a parameter list without meaningful organization or explanation. While brief, it's not effectively structured to aid understanding.

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 complex update tool with 15 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations explaining domain-specific behavior, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a mount is, what fields can be updated, how updates affect running services, or what the response contains. The annotations provide basic safety hints but don't compensate for the missing domain context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 15 parameters (only 1 required), the description merely lists parameter names and basic types without explaining their meaning, relationships, or constraints. It doesn't clarify how parameters interact (e.g., that 'type' determines which of hostPath/volumeName/filePath/content is relevant) or what 'mountId' refers to. The description fails to compensate for the complete 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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'mounts.update' with minimal context. It doesn't explain what a 'mount' is in this system or what specific aspects are being updated. While it mentions 'POST' indicating an HTTP method, this adds little semantic value beyond the name itself.

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. Given the sibling tools list includes dokploy_mounts_create, dokploy_mounts_one, dokploy_mounts_remove, and dokploy_mounts_listByServiceId, there's no indication of when update is appropriate versus create, delete, or read operations.

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