Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world semantics. The description adds nothing beyond what's in annotations - it doesn't explain what 'changeStatus' actually does behaviorally (does it restart a service? change operational state? update monitoring status?), what permissions might be required, or any side effects. With annotations providing basic safety hints, the description adds minimal additional 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 technically concise but under-specified. It wastes characters on technical details like '[redis]' and '(POST)' that don't aid understanding, while lacking meaningful content about the tool's purpose. The parameter listing is structured but unhelpful without explanations. It's brief but not effectively informative.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and complex sibling context, this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameters mean, what happens when invoked, or what to expect in return. The annotations provide basic safety hints but the description fails to add the necessary contextual information for effective tool use.

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 merely lists parameter names and types without explaining what 'redisId' refers to (Redis instance ID? container name? deployment identifier?) or what the applicationStatus enum values mean in context (what does 'idle' vs 'running' vs 'done' signify for a Redis service?). The description adds almost no semantic value beyond what's already visible in the schema structure.

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 ('redis.changeStatus') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being modified (a Redis instance/container?) or what 'changeStatus' means in practical terms. While it mentions 'POST', this is technical implementation detail rather than purpose clarification.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'dokploy_redis_start', 'dokploy_redis_stop', and other status-related tools for different services (mariadb_changeStatus, mongo_changeStatus, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific status change tool is appropriate versus those other tools.

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