Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (write operation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=false (not idempotent), and openWorldHint=true (can create new resources). The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a POST operation, which aligns with the write nature indicated by annotations. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral details like what happens when saving environment variables (overwrites, merges, validation), authentication requirements, or error conditions that would help an agent use it correctly beyond what annotations already indicate.

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 extremely concise - just two lines showing the tool signature and parameter list. While this avoids verbosity, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is logical (tool signature then parameters) but lacks the explanatory content needed for effective tool use. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the content is too sparse to be genuinely helpful.

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 a write operation tool (readOnlyHint=false) with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations beyond basic hints, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does, when to use it, what the parameters mean, what the expected behavior is, or what the return value might be. For a mutation tool that saves environment variables to a Redis instance, this level of documentation is inadequate for an agent 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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists parameters with types but adds minimal semantic value: 'redisId (string, required)' and 'env (any, required)'. It doesn't explain what redisId refers to (Redis instance ID, name, or something else), what format env should be (key-value pairs, JSON, string), or what 'any' type means in practice. For a tool with 0% schema coverage, this minimal parameter listing is insufficient compensation.

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.saveEnvironment (POST)' which is a tautology that restates the tool name and adds HTTP method information. It doesn't explain what 'saveEnvironment' actually does - whether it creates, updates, or persists environment variables for a Redis instance. The sibling tools list shows similar 'saveEnvironment' tools for other services (mariadb, mongo, mysql, postgres), but this description doesn't distinguish this Redis-specific version from those other database variants.

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. There are many Redis-related sibling tools (dokploy_redis_create, dokploy_redis_update, dokploy_redis_deploy, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when saveEnvironment is appropriate versus those other operations. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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