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 that it's a POST request, implying it's a write operation, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. However, it doesn't provide any additional behavioral context about what 'saving environment' entails - whether it overwrites, merges, validates, or has side effects. 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 technically concise but under-specified. It wastes space on obvious formatting ('[mysql] mysql.saveEnvironment (POST)') and provides a parameter list that adds little value beyond what's in the schema. While not verbose, it fails to use its limited space effectively to convey meaningful information about the tool's purpose or usage.

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 write operation (POST) with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'saving environment' means operationally, what format 'env' should take, what happens to existing environment settings, or what the tool returns. With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should provide much more context about this mutation's behavior and outcomes.

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 description carries full burden for explaining parameters. It only lists parameter names and types ('mysqlId (string, required)' and 'env (any, required)') without explaining what these mean. 'env' being type 'any' with no explanation is particularly problematic - is this JSON, key-value pairs, a string? 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 restates the tool name ('mysql.saveEnvironment') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what 'saveEnvironment' means - whether it creates, updates, or configures environment variables for a MySQL instance. This is a tautology that provides no meaningful purpose clarification beyond what's already in the 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?

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools with 'saveEnvironment' in their names (for mariadb, mongo, postgres, redis, and application contexts), but the description doesn't differentiate this MySQL-specific version or explain when environment saving is appropriate versus other MySQL operations like create, update, or deploy.

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