Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive (destructiveHint=false), not idempotent (idempotentHint=false), and operates in an open world (openWorldHint=true). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no mention of what 'reload' entails operationally, whether it causes downtime, what permissions are needed, or what the expected outcome is. With annotations covering basic safety, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral insight.

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 (two lines) but suffers from under-specification rather than efficient communication. The first line repeats the name with HTTP method, and the second lists parameters without context. While not verbose, it fails to convey necessary information, making the brevity unhelpful rather than efficient.

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 mutable operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'reload' means, what the parameters are for, what happens during execution, or what to expect as a result. For a database management tool that likely affects service availability, this lack of context is problematic.

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 documentation. The description lists parameter names (mysqlId, appName) but adds no semantic meaning - no explanation of what these identifiers represent, where to find them, format requirements, or how they relate to the reload operation. For a 2-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, this minimal listing is insufficient compensation.

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/title ('mysql.reload') without explaining what 'reload' means in this context. It doesn't specify what resource is being reloaded (MySQL service/instance) or what the reload action actually does (restart configuration, refresh connections, etc.). While it mentions 'mysql' and 'POST', this is largely tautological with the name and HTTP method.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like dokploy_mysql_start, dokploy_mysql_stop, dokploy_mysql_rebuild, and dokploy_mysql_update, there's no indication of when a 'reload' is appropriate versus these other operations. No prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to similar tools are mentioned.

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