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, open-world operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it specifies it's a POST request, implying a write operation, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. However, it doesn't disclose critical details like what 'save' entails (overwrites, merges?), authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 concise with two lines, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first line repeats the tool name and method without adding value, and the parameter list lacks explanations. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices clarity, making it less helpful for 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?

Given the complexity (a write operation for environment variables), 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'saveEnvironment' does operationally, what the 'env' parameter expects (e.g., key-value pairs), or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with two required parameters and mutation behavior, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 parameters 'postgresId' and 'env' but provides no semantic explanation (e.g., postgresId is the identifier of the PostgreSQL instance, env is the environment variables to save). The 'any' type for 'env' is ambiguous without context. The description fails to clarify parameter meanings, leaving the agent to guess based on schema types alone.

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.saveEnvironment (POST)' restates the tool name and HTTP method but provides minimal functional clarity. It mentions 'saveEnvironment' which implies storing environment variables, but lacks specific details about what this operation does (e.g., saves environment variables for a PostgreSQL database instance). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like other *_saveEnvironment tools (e.g., mariadb_saveEnvironment, redis_saveEnvironment).

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 PostgreSQL instance), when-not-to-use scenarios, or related tools for environment management. Given the many sibling tools, this absence is particularly problematic for an AI agent trying to select the correct tool.

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