Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with openWorldHint. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions it's a POST operation, implying a state change, but doesn't explain what 'reload' entails, potential side effects, or what happens during execution. Some value is added by specifying the HTTP method, but overall behavioral disclosure is limited.

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 (three lines) with no wasted words, but it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It uses a structured format with a header and bullet points, which is clear, but the content is insufficient. While front-loaded with the tool name, it doesn't effectively communicate purpose or usage.

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 this is a state-changing operation (non-readOnly) with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, what happens during execution, or what to expect as a result. The annotations provide some safety profile, but the description adds minimal contextual value for a tool that presumably restarts or refreshes a PostgreSQL service.

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 carries full burden for explaining parameters. It lists the two parameters (postgresId, appName) but provides no semantic meaning for either. It doesn't explain what these identifiers represent, where to find them, or how they relate to the reload operation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 and title ('postgres.reload') without explaining what 'reload' means in this context. It doesn't specify what resource is being reloaded (PostgreSQL service/configuration) or what the effect is. This is essentially a tautology that provides minimal additional information beyond the name.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dokploy_postgres_start', 'dokploy_postgres_stop', 'dokploy_postgres_rebuild', or 'dokploy_postgres_update', nor does it explain when a reload is appropriate versus other operations. No context or prerequisites are provided.

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