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 doesn't add behavioral details beyond this, such as what 'duplicate' entails (e.g., whether it creates a new project or environment, if it copies configurations, or any side effects). However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the baseline for having annotations but adds minimal context.

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 under-specified, not concise. It wastes space on a redundant header ('[project] project.duplicate (POST)') and a bare parameter list without explanations. The structure is inefficient, as it doesn't front-load key 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, annotations only cover basic hints), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool does, when to use it, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameter names and types but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what 'sourceEnvironmentId' refers to, what 'includeServices' controls, or the purpose of 'selectedServices'). This adds little value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 and title ('[project] project.duplicate (POST)') without explaining what 'duplicate' means in this context. It lists parameters but doesn't state the action's purpose (e.g., creating a copy of a project environment). This is tautological rather than clarifying the tool's 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. With sibling tools like 'dokploy_environment_duplicate' and 'dokploy_project_create', the description doesn't differentiate this tool's use case, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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