Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the parameter list. It doesn't explain what 'saveFileAsPatch' entails (e.g., does it create a new patch file, modify an existing one, or trigger a deployment?), what side effects occur, or any permissions/rate limits needed, which is insufficient given the lack of output schema.

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, but it wastes space on a redundant parameter list that adds no value beyond the schema. It could be more concise by focusing on purpose and usage instead of repeating structured data.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema) and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, parameter meanings, behavioral outcomes, or how it fits into the broader patch workflow, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively.

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 by explaining parameter meanings. It only lists parameter names and types without clarifying semantics (e.g., what 'id' refers to, what 'filePath' expects, how 'content' is used, or the implications of 'patchType'). This leaves critical gaps, such as whether 'patchType' defaults or influences behavior.

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.saveFileAsPatch') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being patched, what 'saveFileAsPatch' means operationally, or how this differs from other patch-related tools like 'dokploy_patch_create' or 'dokploy_patch_update' among the siblings.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it relates to other patch tools (e.g., 'dokploy_patch_create', 'dokploy_patch_update') or file operations in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no context for selection.

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