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 what annotations already provide. It doesn't explain what 'move' entails (downtime? data transfer? permissions?), whether it's reversible, what authentication is needed, or any rate limits. With annotations covering basic safety hints, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral 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 and front-loaded with the tool name, but it wastes space by repeating the name in brackets and including a basic parameter list that doesn't add semantic value. While not verbose, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. Every sentence (or line) should earn its place, and the parameter listing here doesn't provide meaningful guidance.

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 this is a mutation tool (move operation) with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only provide basic hints, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the operation's purpose, behavior, parameters, or expected outcomes. For a tool that likely involves significant changes to infrastructure, this level of documentation is inadequate.

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%, meaning neither parameter has any description in the schema. The description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining what 'mysqlId' or 'targetEnvironmentId' represent, their format, or where to find them. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural information, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('mysql.move') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what 'move' means in this context (e.g., migrating a MySQL database between environments) or what resource is being moved. This is essentially a tautology of the name with parameter listing added.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or what happens after moving. Given the sibling tools include other 'move' operations (e.g., dokploy_mariadb_move, dokploy_postgres_move), there's no differentiation provided.

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