Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It implies a deployment action but does not clarify effects (e.g., whether it starts a service, applies changes, or requires specific permissions). With annotations covering basic hints, the description adds minimal value, warranting a baseline score.

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 brief but under-specified, not efficiently conveying purpose. It includes a parameter list but lacks front-loaded clarity, making it somewhat structured but incomplete. While not verbose, it does not earn high marks due to missing essential information.

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 (a deployment action with one parameter), annotations provide some hints, but there is no output schema and schema coverage is 0%. The description inadequately explains the tool's purpose, usage, or parameter semantics, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the annotations.

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%, and the description only lists 'redisId' as a required parameter without explaining its meaning (e.g., an identifier for a Redis configuration or instance). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema details, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear beyond its name.

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 '[redis] redis.deploy (POST)' restates the name/title with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It mentions 'deploy' but lacks specificity about what resource is being deployed (e.g., a Redis instance or configuration) or the outcome, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_redis_create' or 'dokploy_redis_start'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a pre-existing Redis configuration), exclusions, or related tools like 'dokploy_redis_create' for setup, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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