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 that it's a POST request, implying a state-changing action, but doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (e.g., what 'start' entails, potential side effects, error conditions, or authentication needs). With annotations covering basic hints, the description adds minimal context, warranting a baseline score.

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 poorly structured, mixing tool context ('[postgres] postgres.start (POST)') with a parameter list in a non-standard format. It's not front-loaded with a clear summary, and the parameter section is redundant with the schema. While brief, it lacks effective organization, making it harder to parse than a simple, well-formed sentence.

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 state-changing tool (POST) with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'start' means operationally, what the expected outcome is (e.g., success/failure indicators), or any dependencies. Given the complexity of managing database instances and the lack of output details, more context is needed for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameter 'postgresId' as required but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what constitutes a valid ID, where to find it, format constraints). The schema specifies it's a non-empty string, but the description adds no value beyond restating the parameter name. Given the low coverage, this is inadequate, but the single parameter is straightforward, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts a PostgreSQL instance, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like dokploy_postgres_stop or dokploy_postgres_changeStatus, nor does it specify what 'start' means operationally (e.g., starting a stopped container, initiating a deployment). The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation and operational clarity.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the PostgreSQL instance must exist and be stopped), when not to use it (e.g., if already running), or how it relates to sibling tools like dokploy_postgres_stop or dokploy_postgres_changeStatus. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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