Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), openWorldHint=true (accepts unknown parameters). The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers no additional value.

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: it starts with '[project] project.update (POST)' which is redundant with the name/title, followed by a parameter list that duplicates schema information without adding value. It's not front-loaded with useful information and includes unnecessary formatting, making it inefficient.

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, mutation operation), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the update behavior, what happens to unspecified fields, or the response format. Annotations help but don't compensate for missing usage and parameter details.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists parameters but only as names and types (e.g., 'projectId (string, required)'), adding minimal semantics like optionality. It fails to explain what each parameter does (e.g., 'env' meaning environment), leaving significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 'project.update (POST)' which indicates it updates a project, but it's vague about what specific fields can be updated and doesn't distinguish it from other project-related tools like 'dokploy_project_create' or 'dokploy_project_remove'. The verb 'update' is clear but lacks specificity about the resource scope beyond 'project'.

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 siblings like 'dokploy_project_create', 'dokploy_project_remove', and 'dokploy_project_search', the description doesn't indicate prerequisites, such as needing an existing project, or differentiate its use case from other update tools in the system.

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