Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide basic hints (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open world), but the description adds almost no behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'creates' means operationally - whether this creates persistent configuration, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on duplicate entries. For a creation tool with no idempotence hint, the description should clarify creation behavior but doesn't.

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 concise but poorly structured. It starts with redundant information '[redirects] redirects.create (POST)' that repeats the tool name, then provides a parameter list. While brief, it wastes the opening line on tautology rather than explaining purpose. The parameter list format is clear but could be better integrated with explanatory text.

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 creation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and sibling tools that suggest a redirect management system, this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what redirects are in this system, how they're used, what the creation process entails, or what the expected outcome is. The parameter list helps but doesn't compensate for missing operational context.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It lists all 4 parameters with their types and required status, which is valuable. However, it doesn't explain what each parameter means (e.g., what 'regex' matches against, what 'replacement' format is expected, what 'permanent' means for HTTP status codes, what 'applicationId' refers to). The parameter listing is helpful but lacks semantic context.

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 is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'redirects.create' and adds HTTP method 'POST'. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does (creates URL redirects/routing rules). While it mentions 'redirects', it doesn't specify what kind of redirects (HTTP, URL routing, etc.) or in what context (web server, application, etc.).

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 on when to use this tool. There are sibling tools like 'dokploy_redirects_delete', 'dokploy_redirects_one', and 'dokploy_redirects_update', but the description provides no differentiation or indication of when to choose create vs update vs delete. No prerequisites, alternatives, or context are mentioned.

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