Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide good coverage: readOnlyHint=false (write operation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=false (not idempotent), openWorldHint=true (can create new resources). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare - no information about what gets created, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. However, there's no contradiction with annotations, and annotations cover the essential safety profile, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 technically concise (just parameter listing), but it's poorly structured and front-loaded with irrelevant formatting ('[patch] patch.create (POST)'). The parameter list is presented but without meaningful organization or prioritization. While brief, it wastes space on redundant information (tool name) rather than providing value.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic safety hints, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a patch is, what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or what the expected outcomes are. For a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with multiple parameters, this level of documentation is inadequate for effective tool 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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description merely lists parameter names and basic types without explaining what they mean (e.g., what 'filePath' represents, what 'content' contains, what 'type' enum values actually do, what 'applicationId' and 'composeId' refer to). This minimal parameter listing doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 is essentially a tautology - it restates the tool name 'patch.create' without explaining what a 'patch' is in this context or what resource it operates on. While it mentions 'POST' and lists parameters, it doesn't state what the tool actually does (e.g., creates a patch file, applies a patch to a system, etc.). The sibling tools include other patch-related tools like 'dokploy_patch_delete' and 'dokploy_patch_update', but this description doesn't differentiate from them.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools like 'dokploy_patch_update' or 'dokploy_patch_delete'. An agent would have no idea when this tool is the correct choice.

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