Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), and openWorldHint=true (open-world). The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the parameter list. It doesn't explain what 'toggleEnabled' does to the patch state, whether it's reversible, or what the expected outcome is.

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 and HTTP method without adding value, then lists parameters without explanation. While concise, it wastes space on redundant information rather than providing useful content, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'patch' is in this system, what toggling enabled does, what the expected response looks like, or any error conditions. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (e.g., patch management), more context is needed for 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 (patchId, enabled) but provides no semantic meaning: what a patchId is, what format it expects, or what 'enabled' toggles (e.g., activation status, visibility). This adds little beyond the schema's type constraints, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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.toggleEnabled') and HTTP method ('POST') without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource 'patch' refers to or what 'toggleEnabled' means in context. While it lists parameters, this doesn't clarify the purpose beyond the tautological name restatement.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or related tools among the many siblings (like dokploy_patch_create, dokploy_patch_update, dokploy_patch_delete). There's no indication of when this specific toggle operation is appropriate.

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