Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action. It doesn't explain what 'stop' entails (e.g., graceful shutdown, data persistence, service interruption), whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens on repeated calls, missing critical details for a state-changing operation.

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 front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, the formatting with brackets and parentheses is slightly cluttered, and it could be more polished while remaining concise.

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's complexity (state-changing operation), lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 required parameter without adding any semantic meaning. It doesn't explain what a 'redisId' is (e.g., a UUID, name, or identifier format), where to find it, or its constraints, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 stops a Redis instance ('redis.stop') and identifies the required parameter, which clarifies the basic action. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_redis_start' or 'dokploy_redis_changeStatus', leaving ambiguity about when to choose this specific stop function over alternatives.

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 (e.g., Redis must be running), exclusions (e.g., cannot stop if in use), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'dokploy_redis_changeStatus' or 'dokploy_application_stop', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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