Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that it's a POST request, implying a state change, but doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or rate limits. With annotations covering basic safety, the description provides minimal additional context, meeting the lower bar but not enriching understanding.

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 brief but inefficiently structured. It front-loads the tool name and method, then lists parameters without context. While not verbose, it wastes space on redundant information (e.g., restating the name) instead of providing actionable details. It could be more concise by integrating parameter explanations into the purpose statement.

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 redeployment operation with 3 parameters), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'redeploy' entails, the outcome, error conditions, or how parameters influence the process. With annotations providing basic hints but no detailed behavioral or output information, the description leaves critical gaps.

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 (previewDeploymentId, title, description) but doesn't explain their meanings, formats, or how they affect the redeployment. For example, it's unclear if 'title' and 'description' are for logging, notifications, or deployment metadata. This adds little value beyond the schema's structure.

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 ('previewDeployment.redeploy') without explaining what 'redeploy' means in this context. It mentions 'POST' and lists parameters but doesn't specify the action's effect (e.g., restarting, updating, or triggering a new deployment of a preview deployment). This is closer to a tautology than a clear purpose statement.

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. Sibling tools include 'dokploy_application_redeploy' and 'dokploy_compose_redeploy', but the description doesn't differentiate this as a preview-specific redeployment or explain prerequisites. Without any usage context, the agent lacks direction.

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