Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world hints, but the description adds no behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'start' entails (e.g., starting a service, container, or process), potential side effects, permissions required, or error conditions. With annotations providing basic safety hints, the description fails to compensate for the lack of output schema or detailed behavioral disclosure.

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 but poorly structured—it mixes tool signature ('[mysql] mysql.start (POST)') with a parameter list in a non-standard format. While it avoids verbosity, the presentation is cluttered and doesn't front-load key information effectively. It could be more readable with clearer separation of concerns.

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 state-changing operation with no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'start' means, expected outcomes, error handling, or how it interacts with other MySQL tools. Annotations provide some hints, but without output schema or richer description, the agent lacks 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 required parameter without explaining its meaning, format, or how to obtain it. It doesn't clarify if this is an ID of a MySQL instance, container, or service, or provide examples. With low schema coverage, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare parameter name.

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.start') and verb ('POST') without clarifying what 'start' means in this context. It doesn't specify whether this starts a MySQL service, container, or instance, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_mysql_stop' or 'dokploy_mysql_changeStatus'. This is a tautology that adds minimal value beyond the name/title.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., MySQL must be stopped), when not to use it (e.g., if already running), or refer to sibling tools like 'dokploy_mysql_stop' or 'dokploy_mysql_changeStatus'. This leaves the agent with no context for selection.

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