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 for creation, which aligns with annotations but doesn't provide extra behavioral context like error handling, permissions needed, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the action and parameters in a clear, bullet-point format. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be more structured by separating usage notes from parameter lists. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient.

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 (creation tool with 3 parameters), no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error cases, or how the tool fits into the broader system (e.g., project lifecycle). Annotations help but don't fully compensate for these 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 (name, description, env) with basic types but lacks semantic details such as format constraints (e.g., name uniqueness), purpose of 'env', or examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural info.

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 creates a project with specific parameters (name, description, env), which clarifies the verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_project_update' or 'dokploy_project_duplicate', leaving the scope vague regarding when to create versus update or duplicate.

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. The description lists parameters but doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., initial setup vs. adding projects), or when to choose this over similar tools like 'dokploy_project_update' or 'dokploy_project_duplicate'.

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