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 operation with open-world semantics. The description adds that it's a POST request (implying creation) and lists parameters, but doesn't provide additional behavioral context like what happens on duplicate names, whether it deploys immediately, or any rate limits. Since annotations cover basic safety, the description adds minimal value beyond them.

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 structured with a clear header and parameter list, but includes redundant information (e.g., repeating 'postgres' and listing all parameters verbatim without explanation). It could be more concise by focusing on high-level purpose and key parameters rather than enumerating every field. The structure is functional but not optimally efficient.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, 5 required), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or dependencies. For a creation tool with many parameters and no structured documentation, more contextual information is needed to guide proper usage.

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 must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only lists parameter names and types without any semantic context (e.g., what 'environmentId' refers to, format constraints for 'databaseName', or what 'dockerImage' defaults to). This leaves critical gaps in understanding how to use the 9 parameters effectively.

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 clearly states the tool creates a PostgreSQL database with specific required parameters (name, databaseName, databaseUser, databasePassword, environmentId). It uses the verb 'create' and specifies the resource 'postgres', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dokploy_postgres_update or dokploy_postgres_deploy, which prevents a perfect score.

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 environment or server), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like dokploy_postgres_update for modifications. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.

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