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. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the parameter list. It doesn't explain what 'create' entails (e.g., whether it's a persistent configuration, if it affects running applications, or what happens on conflicts). With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds some value through the parameter details but lacks deeper behavioral insights.

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 structured as a parameter list, which is efficient. However, it lacks a clear purpose statement upfront, forcing the agent to infer functionality from the parameter names. The formatting with brackets and 'POST' is somewhat technical but not wasteful. It could be more front-loaded with intent.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations only covering basic hints, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome (what a 'port' is in this context), error conditions, or relationships with other tools. The parameter list helps, but without semantic explanations or usage context, an agent would struggle to use this tool correctly in isolation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It lists all 5 parameters with their types and constraints (enums, required status), which provides essential semantic information not in the schema. However, it doesn't explain what each parameter means (e.g., 'publishedPort' vs 'targetPort', what 'publishMode' choices imply, or how 'applicationId' is used), leaving some interpretation gaps.

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 ('port.create') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being created (a port mapping/configuration for an application) or distinguish it from sibling port tools like dokploy_port_delete or dokploy_port_update. This is essentially a tautology that provides minimal functional insight.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing application), constraints, or relationships with sibling tools like dokploy_port_delete or dokploy_port_update. There's no context about when port creation is appropriate versus other configuration methods.

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