Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), openWorldHint=true (accepts unknown fields). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover. It doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or response format. Since annotations are present and not contradicted, the bar is lower, but the description adds no value here.

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 poorly structured: it starts with redundant '[patch] patch.update (POST)', then lists parameters without context. It's not front-loaded with purpose, and the parameter list is verbose without adding explanatory value. While brief, it's inefficient due to under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only hint at safety, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a patch is, what fields are updatable, or the expected outcome. For a mutation tool with many optional parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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 with basic types but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what 'patchId' identifies, what 'content' contains, what 'enabled' controls). This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify usage. With 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

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 essentially restates the tool name 'patch.update' with the HTTP method 'POST', which is tautological. It doesn't explain what a 'patch' is in this context (e.g., a code patch, configuration patch) or what specific resource is being updated. While it lists parameters, it doesn't articulate the core action beyond the name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include 'dokploy_patch_create', 'dokploy_patch_delete', and 'dokploy_patch_toggleEnabled', but the description doesn't differentiate this update tool from those or specify prerequisites like needing an existing patch. It provides 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.