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 (destructiveHint=false), non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false), and open-world (openWorldHint=true) operation. The description adds minimal context by specifying it's a POST request, but fails to explain what 'rebuild' entails—whether it involves data loss, reconfiguration, or downtime—or any side effects like service interruption. For a tool with annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded, with no unnecessary sentences. However, it is under-specified rather than concise, as it lacks essential details about the tool's purpose and usage. The structure is clear but incomplete.

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 of a 'rebuild' operation, the absence of an output schema, and annotations that only partially cover behavior, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, potential errors, or the impact on the PostgreSQL instance, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description only lists the parameter 'postgresId' without adding any meaning. It doesn't clarify what a 'postgresId' is (e.g., a database instance identifier, a configuration ID), its format, or where to obtain it. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter 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 states the tool is for 'postgres.rebuild (POST)', which indicates it rebuilds a PostgreSQL database. This is a specific verb+resource combination, but it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'dokploy_postgres_reload' or 'dokploy_postgres_deploy', leaving the exact nature of 'rebuild' ambiguous compared to similar operations.

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 description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the PostgreSQL instance must be stopped or in a specific state, and doesn't mention any exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like 'reload' or 'deploy'.

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