Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (non-read operation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), and openWorldHint=true (open-world). The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as what 'rebuild' entails (e.g., downtime, data persistence, permissions required). With annotations covering basic safety, the description fails to add meaningful value, but does not contradict annotations.

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 concise with two lines, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first line '[mysql] mysql.rebuild (POST)' is redundant with the name/title, and the parameters list is minimal. While not verbose, it lacks substantive content, making it inefficient in conveying necessary information.

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 (a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world hint), the description is severely inadequate. It lacks details on what 'rebuild' does, expected outcomes, error conditions, or side effects. With no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description fails to provide a complete context for safe and effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only lists 'mysqlId' as a parameter without explaining its semantics (e.g., what a MySQL ID is, where to find it, format constraints). For a single required parameter with no schema documentation, the description does not compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning and usage unclear.

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 '[mysql] mysql.rebuild (POST)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name with minimal context. It mentions 'mysql' and 'rebuild' but lacks a specific verb-resource combination explaining what 'rebuild' entails (e.g., recreating a MySQL database instance, resetting configurations). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like dokploy_mysql_reload or dokploy_mysql_remove, leaving the purpose vague.

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. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like dokploy_mysql_reload (for reloading) and dokploy_mysql_remove (for deletion), the lack of differentiation is misleading, as an agent cannot infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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