Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations provide good behavioral information (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds no additional context about what 'update' means operationally. It doesn't explain whether this updates a running PostgreSQL instance, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens to unspecified parameters. The description doesn't contradict annotations but adds minimal value beyond them.

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?

While technically concise (just one line), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes its limited space on redundant information ([postgres] and (POST)) instead of providing meaningful content. The structure doesn't front-load essential information about the tool's 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?

For a complex mutation tool with 31 parameters, no output schema, and significant behavioral implications, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what gets updated, how the update affects the PostgreSQL instance, what permissions are required, what the response contains, or how to interpret the many optional parameters. The annotations help but don't compensate for the description's complete lack of operational guidance.

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?

With 31 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides absolutely no information about parameter meanings, relationships, or usage. The schema documents types and constraints, but the description doesn't explain what 'postgresId' identifies, what fields can be updated, how optional parameters interact, or the purpose of complex swarm-related parameters. This leaves the agent with only raw schema information.

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.update (POST)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and HTTP method without explaining what the tool actually does. It mentions 'postgres' and 'update' but doesn't specify what is being updated (PostgreSQL database instance configuration) or what the update entails. This provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 31 sibling tools including other database update tools (like dokploy_mariadb_update, dokploy_mysql_update) and related Postgres tools (dokploy_postgres_create, dokploy_postgres_deploy), there's no indication of when this specific update tool is appropriate versus creating a new instance or using other database tools.

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