Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate the tool is mutable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and open-world (openWorldHint=true). The description adds minimal context by specifying the HTTP method (POST), implying a write operation, but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like permissions needed, side effects, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description adds some value but is sparse on details.

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 front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it includes redundant formatting (brackets, parentheses) and a parameter list that adds little value. While not verbose, it lacks efficient structuring—the parameter listing is unnecessary without explanation, and the overall text could be more streamlined to convey purpose clearly.

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 mutation with one parameter) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'setDefault' does, the outcome, or error conditions. Annotations provide some behavioral hints, but the description fails to add necessary context for effective use, especially with 0% schema description coverage.

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 only defines 'organizationId' as a required string. The description lists the parameter but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what an organization ID is, where to find it, format examples). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.

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 and title without explaining what 'setDefault' means for an organization. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) and lists the parameter, but fails to specify the action's effect (e.g., setting an organization as default for the user, system, or context). This is a tautology that adds little 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., user must have permissions), or sibling tools like 'dokploy_organization_active' or 'dokploy_organization_all' that might be related. The description lacks any usage instructions or exclusions.

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