Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide basic hints (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open world), but the description adds minimal context by specifying it's a POST operation. However, it doesn't explain what 'ensure' means operationally - whether it creates if missing, validates existence, or performs some configuration. For a non-idempotent, non-read-only tool, more behavioral detail would be helpful.

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 but under-specified. It wastes space on obvious formatting ('[patch]', HTTP method) while lacking substantive content. The structure with a parameter list is organized, but the content is insufficient. It's not verbose, but it's not helpful either.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only provide basic hints, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what 'ensuring a repo' entails operationally, or how it relates to other patch tools. For a POST operation with openWorldHint=true, more context about side effects and outcomes is needed.

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 carries full burden for explaining parameters. It merely lists parameter names and types without explaining what 'id' represents (repository ID? patch ID? entity ID?) or what the 'type' enum values ('application', 'compose') mean in this context. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 restates the tool name ('patch.ensureRepo') and HTTP method ('POST') without explaining what the tool actually does. It provides a list of parameters but no functional explanation of what 'ensureRepo' means - whether it creates, verifies, or configures a repository. This is tautological rather than clarifying.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools related to patches (dokploy_patch_byEntityId, dokploy_patch_create, dokploy_patch_delete, etc.), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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