Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable operation (readOnlyHint: false) that is non-destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - it doesn't explain what 'move' actually does, whether it's a migration with downtime, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with 'move' in its name and no output schema, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 and structured with a clear parameter list, but it's under-specified rather than concise. The '[redis] redis.move (POST)' header is redundant with the tool name, and the parameter listing without explanations doesn't add meaningful value. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary information efficiently.

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?

This is a mutation tool (readOnlyHint: false) with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage. The description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameters mean, what behavior to expect, or what the result will be. Given the complexity implied by 'move' operations and complete lack of structured documentation, this description is wholly inadequate.

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 must compensate. It only lists parameter names (redisId, targetEnvironmentId) without explaining what these IDs represent, where to find them, what format they should be in, or what the relationship is between source and target environments. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare parameter names already visible in 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 ('redis.move') and lists parameters without explaining what 'move' means in this context. It doesn't specify what resource is being moved (Redis instance, database, data?) or what 'move' entails (migration, relocation, reassignment?). This is essentially a tautology of the name with parameter listing.

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. The sibling tools list includes other Redis tools (create, delete, deploy, etc.) and other 'move' tools (application_move, mariadb_move, etc.), but the description provides no context about when this specific Redis move operation is appropriate versus creating new instances or using other Redis operations.

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