Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world semantics. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no information about what status changes mean, whether they're reversible, what permissions are required, or what side effects might occur. With annotations covering basic safety profile, the description adds minimal value.

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 wastes space on the HTTP method (POST) which isn't helpful for an AI agent, and presents parameters in a bulleted format that duplicates schema information. While concise in word count, it doesn't front-load the most important information about what the tool actually does.

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 status change operation with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic safety, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the purpose of status changes, what each status means, what happens when status is changed, or what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 both parameters (postgresId, applicationStatus) and the enum values for applicationStatus, which provides basic semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain what postgresId refers to (instance ID? database name?) or what each status value means in practice (what does 'idle' vs 'running' vs 'done' indicate?). The description adds some value but leaves critical 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 ('postgres.changeStatus') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being changed (PostgreSQL instance? database? service?) or what 'changeStatus' means in practice. This is essentially a tautology of the name with parameter documentation.

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. Given the sibling tools include dokploy_postgres_start, dokploy_postgres_stop, and dokploy_postgres_update, there's clear overlap in functionality but no explanation of when this status change tool is appropriate versus those specific action tools.

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