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, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It implies a write action ('save') without specifying effects like whether it overrides existing ports, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations but provides little extra insight beyond the structured hints.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and method, but it includes a redundant parameter list that adds little value. While efficient in length, the structure could be improved by integrating meaningful context instead of just repeating parameter names, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 write operation with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's purpose in detail, parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context.

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, but it only lists parameter names without explaining their semantics. It mentions 'postgresId' and 'externalPort' but doesn't clarify what these represent (e.g., ID format, port number constraints, or that 'externalPort' can be null). This leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter usage beyond the basic schema.

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.saveExternalPort' with a POST method, indicating it saves an external port for a PostgreSQL resource. However, it's vague about what 'save' entails (e.g., setting, updating, or configuring a port) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_postgres_saveEnvironment', leaving ambiguity in its specific function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing PostgreSQL instance), when to choose this over other 'saveExternalPort' tools for different databases (e.g., mariadb, mongo), or any exclusions, making it unclear in the broader toolset.

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