Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what's already in annotations. For a deployment tool, the description should explain what 'deploy' entails - whether it creates resources, triggers a process, or performs some other action. With annotations providing basic safety information but the description adding no deployment-specific context, this represents minimal value addition.

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 extremely concise - just '[postgres] postgres.deploy (POST)' - which could be considered efficient. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than truly concise. The structure with brackets and parentheses is somewhat organized but doesn't follow conventional description patterns that would be more helpful to an AI agent.

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 deployment tool with no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and annotations that only provide basic safety hints, this description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, what the parameter means, what happens during deployment, what the expected outcome is, or how this differs from related tools. The description fails to provide the contextual information needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 for the single 'postgresId' parameter, the description carries full burden for explaining parameter meaning. The description provides no information about what 'postgresId' represents, where to obtain it, what format it should be in, or what it references. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented despite being required.

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 '[postgres] postgres.deploy (POST)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and HTTP method. It doesn't specify what 'deploy' actually means in this context - whether it's initial deployment, redeployment, or some other operation. While it mentions 'postgres', it doesn't distinguish this tool from other PostgreSQL-related tools like 'dokploy_postgres_create' or 'dokploy_postgres_redeploy'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple PostgreSQL-related tools in the sibling list (create, deploy, move, rebuild, reload, remove, start, stop, update), but the description offers no context about when this specific 'deploy' operation is appropriate versus those other operations.

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