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, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name. It doesn't explain what 'saving an external port' entails (e.g., whether it updates configuration, requires restart, affects connectivity, or has side effects). With annotations covering basic hints, the description fails to provide meaningful additional 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 brief but inefficiently structured. It includes redundant information like '[mysql]' and '(POST)' which might be inferred from context, and the parameter listing adds little value without explanations. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded purpose and wastes space on unhelpful details.

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 (mutation operation with 2 parameters), 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only provide basic hints, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameters mean, or what to expect as a result, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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 must compensate. It lists parameters (mysqlId, externalPort) but provides no semantic meaning—what a mysqlId is, what externalPort represents, acceptable values, or that externalPort can be null. The description merely repeats parameter names without adding context, failing to address the schema's documentation gap.

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 states the tool name and HTTP method but lacks a clear purpose statement. It mentions 'mysql.saveExternalPort' which suggests saving an external port for a MySQL instance, but this is inferred from the name rather than explicitly stated. No specific verb-resource combination is provided, and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like dokploy_mariadb_saveExternalPort or dokploy_postgres_saveExternalPort.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be related (e.g., other database port configuration tools in the sibling list). This leaves the agent with no contextual usage information.

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