Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it implies a write ('POST') but doesn't explain what 'save' entails (e.g., whether it updates configuration, requires redeployment, or affects running services). For a mutation tool with annotations covering basic safety, the description adds little value beyond confirming it's a POST request.

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 header and parameter list, but it's under-specified rather than concise. The first line '[redis] redis.saveExternalPort (POST)' is redundant with the name and title, and the parameter listing adds little value without explanations. While not verbose, it fails to convey 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?

Given a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's effect, parameter usage, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly in the context of Redis management.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists parameter names and types but doesn't explain their meaning (e.g., what 'redisId' refers to, what 'externalPort' represents, or that 'null' might disable the port). It adds minimal semantics beyond the schema's type information, insufficient for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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.saveExternalPort') and lists parameters, but doesn't explain what the tool actually does. It mentions 'POST' which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify what 'saveExternalPort' means in context (e.g., configuring Redis external port). This is borderline tautological rather than clarifying purpose.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'dokploy_mariadb_saveExternalPort' and 'dokploy_postgres_saveExternalPort' for other services, but the description doesn't differentiate this Redis-specific tool or mention prerequisites. This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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