Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (safe), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), and openWorldHint=true (flexible inputs). The description doesn't contradict these but adds no behavioral context beyond the POST method hint. It lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if status changes affect database availability), rate limits, or response format. With annotations covering basic safety, 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 but poorly structured: it includes redundant info (POST method, parameter list) that's already in the schema, and the front-loaded content is just the tool name. It wastes space on formatting (brackets, parentheses) without adding value. However, it's not overly verbose, so it avoids a lower score for bloat.

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 a mutation tool with no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and annotations that only hint at behavior, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does operationally, when to use it, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes. For a tool that changes application status—a potentially critical operation—this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 no parameter descriptions. The description lists parameters but only repeats schema info (names and enum values) without explaining semantics: e.g., what mysqlId refers to (MySQL instance ID?), what each applicationStatus value means (e.g., 'running' vs 'idle'), or format constraints. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, adding little meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 name/title with minimal elaboration ('[mysql] mysql.changeStatus (POST)'), which is tautological. It doesn't specify what 'changeStatus' actually does (e.g., update MySQL application state), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like dokploy_mysql_start or dokploy_mysql_stop, which likely manage similar states. The purpose is vague beyond the literal 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. Sibling tools include dokploy_mysql_start, dokploy_mysql_stop, dokploy_mysql_update, and other status-related tools (e.g., dokploy_mariadb_changeStatus), but the description provides no context on distinctions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is entirely implied, leaving the agent to guess.

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