Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide good behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds no additional context. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. Since annotations cover the core safety profile, the description gets a baseline score but misses opportunities to add value beyond structured data.

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 repeats the tool name in brackets and includes a POST method note that adds little value. The parameter list is minimal but doesn't front-load critical information. While not verbose, it wastes space on redundant elements instead of focusing on helpful content.

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?

For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects. Annotations help with safety, but the description fails to provide necessary context for effective use, especially given the lack of parameter documentation.

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 provides no parameter documentation. The description lists parameter names but adds no semantic meaning—it doesn't explain what 'memberId' refers to, what valid 'role' values are, or format requirements. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving parameters poorly understood.

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 a member's role in an organization, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_organization_inviteMember' or 'dokploy_organization_removeInvitation' that also manage organization members. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling distinction.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be related (like viewing members first). Usage context is entirely absent.

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