Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide good behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds no context beyond what's already in annotations. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., whether it overwrites all fields or merges, what happens to existing redirects, or any permission requirements). With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal 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 concise but poorly structured. It starts with redundant bracketed text ('[redirects] redirects.update (POST)') and then provides a basic parameter list. While brief, it fails to front-load the most important information about the tool's purpose and 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 this is a mutation tool (updating redirects) with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what redirects are, what fields can be updated, what the expected behavior is, or what the tool returns. The annotations help but don't compensate for the lack of semantic information in the description.

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 carries full burden for explaining parameters. It only lists parameter names and types without explaining what they mean (e.g., what 'redirectId' identifies, what 'regex' pattern should match, what 'replacement' does, or what 'permanent' means for HTTP redirects). This provides almost no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('redirects.update') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify that this updates an existing redirect configuration or what 'redirects' refer to in the Dokploy context. This is essentially a tautology that provides minimal additional information beyond the name.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include dokploy_redirects_create, dokploy_redirects_delete, and dokploy_redirects_one, but the description doesn't differentiate this update operation from those or explain prerequisites like needing an existing redirect ID.

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