Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world semantics. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a POST request, implying a state-changing action. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'reload' entails operationally (e.g., service interruption, configuration refresh) or any side effects beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a redundant label '[redis]' and repeats the tool name, then lists parameters without explanation. While not verbose, it wastes space on unhelpful formatting rather than conveying essential information. The two-line format is simple but lacks effective front-loading of key details.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the reload action's purpose, parameter meanings, expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a state-changing tool in a complex system with many siblings, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how to use it correctly.

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 lists parameters 'redisId' and 'appName' but provides no semantic meaning—what these identifiers represent, their format, or how they relate to the reload operation. Without this, the agent cannot understand what values to provide or their significance in the context of reloading Redis.

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.reload') and lists parameters without explaining what 'reload' means in this context. It doesn't specify whether this reloads configuration, restarts the service, clears cache, or performs another action. While it mentions the resource (Redis), the verb 'reload' is vague without additional context about what gets reloaded.

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', 'dokploy_redis_rebuild', and 'dokploy_settings_reloadRedis', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. No prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusions are mentioned.

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