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=true (safe to retry), and openWorldHint=true (can create new resources). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., whether it replaces or merges settings, error conditions, or side effects). However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 concise and structured as a parameter list, which is efficient. However, it lacks a proper introductory sentence explaining the tool's purpose, making it feel incomplete rather than optimally concise. Every line serves a purpose, but the overall structure is minimalistic.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameters mean, or what to expect upon success/failure. For a mutation tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description lists parameter names and types but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what portId refers to, the difference between publishedPort and targetPort, what publishMode values imply). This minimal listing doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 merely restates the tool name as '[port] port.update (POST)' without explaining what 'update' means in this context. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (a port configuration for a service/application) or what the update entails. While it lists parameters, this doesn't constitute a clear purpose statement beyond the tautological name repetition.

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 list includes dokploy_port_create, dokploy_port_delete, and dokploy_port_one, but the description provides no context about when to choose update over create or delete, or what prerequisites might exist (e.g., needing an existing port).

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