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 that it's a POST request, which implies mutation, but doesn't provide behavioral details beyond what annotations already cover. No additional context about side effects, permissions, or response behavior is included, though there's no contradiction with annotations.

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 information like '[redis] redis.start' and formatting that doesn't add value. While not verbose, it fails to front-load critical information and includes unnecessary formatting elements that don't enhance clarity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens when Redis is started, what success/failure looks like, or any dependencies. Given the annotations provide some behavioral hints but lack full context, the description should do more to compensate for these gaps.

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 'redisId' as a required string parameter without explaining what this ID represents, how to obtain it, or its format. No additional semantic context is provided beyond the basic schema information, leaving the parameter meaning unclear.

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 the tool starts a Redis instance, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_redis_stop' or 'dokploy_redis_changeStatus' - it merely restates the name/title without clarifying what 'start' means in this context (e.g., starting a stopped Redis service vs. initial deployment).

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., Redis must exist and be stopped), nor does it reference related tools like 'dokploy_redis_stop' or 'dokploy_redis_changeStatus' for status management. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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