Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds minimal context by specifying it's a POST operation and listing parameters, but doesn't elaborate on behavioral aspects like permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields during update. It doesn't contradict annotations, so no penalty.

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, followed by a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the parameter list could be integrated more smoothly into a sentence for better flow.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that don't cover all behavioral aspects (e.g., auth needs), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and deeper parameter semantics, making it insufficient 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%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters (organizationId, name, logo) with types and required/optional status, which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., organizationId format, logo as URL or base64, name constraints), leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 updates an organization with specific parameters (name, logo), which is a clear verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_organization_create' or 'dokploy_organization_delete', leaving the scope vague regarding what 'update' entails compared to creation or deletion.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing organization), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'dokploy_organization_create' for initial setup or 'dokploy_organization_delete' for removal.

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