Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a POST request, which aligns with the non-readOnly annotation. However, it doesn't provide any additional behavioral details like what happens on creation failure, whether it returns the created resource ID, or any side effects. The annotations cover the basic safety profile, so the description adds limited 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 technically concise but poorly structured. It front-loads the tool name and method but then presents a bare parameter list without context. While there's no wasted text, the structure doesn't effectively communicate purpose or usage. The parameter list formatting is mechanical rather than 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 creation tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations covering idempotency or side effects, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets created, what the expected output looks like, or any prerequisites. Given the complexity implied by multiple parameters and the lack of output schema, the description should provide more context about the creation operation and its results.

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 and 7 parameters (3 required), the description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining their meaning or purpose. It doesn't clarify what 'name' refers to (instance name, container name?), what 'environmentId' represents, why 'databasePassword' is required, or what 'appName' and 'serverId' are for. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 essentially a tautology that restates the tool name ('redis.create') without explaining what it actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being created (a Redis database instance, container, or service) or what the outcome is. While it mentions it's a POST operation, this doesn't clarify the purpose beyond the obvious implication of 'create' in 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for different database types (mariadb_create, mysql_create, postgres_create, mongo_create) and other Redis-related tools (redis_deploy, redis_update, etc.), the description provides zero context about when this specific Redis creation tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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