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, open-world operation. The description adds that it's a POST request, implying a write operation, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral context like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate names.

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 and structured with a clear header and parameter list, making it easy to scan. However, the formatting with brackets and parentheses could be slightly cleaner, and it lacks a complete sentence explaining the tool's purpose upfront.

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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., organization ID, success status) or error conditions, which is critical for a creation tool with write operations indicated by annotations.

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 'name' and 'logo' with types and optionality, but doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., organization name format, logo URL or base64 string), leaving semantics unclear beyond basic schema information.

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 clearly states the tool creates an organization with required name and optional logo parameters, specifying the action and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling organization tools like 'dokploy_organization_update' or 'dokploy_organization_delete', which would require explicit comparison.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lists parameters but doesn't mention prerequisites, when this should be used instead of other organization tools, or any contextual constraints for creating an organization.

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