Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds no behavioral context. For a 'rebuild' operation, it doesn't clarify if data is preserved, if downtime occurs, or what the expected outcome is. With annotations covering basic hints, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral details beyond the minimal schema info.

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 inefficiently structured. It includes redundant info like '(POST)' and a parameter list that doesn't add value. While not verbose, it lacks a clear, front-loaded explanation of the tool's purpose, making it less helpful despite its conciseness.

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 complexity of a 'rebuild' operation, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'rebuild' does, potential side effects, or expected results. For a tool that likely involves significant system changes, this leaves critical gaps in understanding for safe and effective 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%, and the description only lists 'redisId' as a parameter without explaining what it is (e.g., an identifier for a Redis instance). It doesn't provide format examples, constraints, or where to obtain the ID. With one undocumented parameter, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type and requirement.

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 states '[redis] redis.rebuild (POST)' which is a tautology of the tool name and adds minimal context. It mentions 'rebuild' but doesn't specify what resource is being rebuilt (Redis instance/database) or what 'rebuild' entails. Compared to siblings like dokploy_redis_reload or dokploy_redis_deploy, it doesn't differentiate the specific action.

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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios for rebuilding Redis, or what distinguishes it from other Redis operations like reload, deploy, or start/stop. Without this, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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