Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent update operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving a moderate gap in transparency.

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 inefficiently structured as a raw parameter list without a clear purpose statement, making it front-loaded with irrelevant details. While concise in length, it wastes space on redundant information (parameter names) instead of providing actionable guidance, leading to poor usability.

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 (29 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential context such as the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, parameter explanations, and expected outcomes, failing to compensate for the absence of an output schema and low schema coverage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 29 parameters, the description merely lists parameter names without explaining their purpose, constraints, or relationships. It fails to add any semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as what 'redisId' refers to or how optional fields like 'dockerImage' affect the update, making parameter understanding inadequate.

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 is a tautology that merely repeats the tool name 'redis.update' and lists parameters without stating what the tool actually does. It fails to specify the action (e.g., update Redis instance configuration) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_redis_create' or 'dokploy_redis_stop'.

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., requires an existing Redis instance), typical use cases, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'dokploy_redis_create' for creation or 'dokploy_redis_deploy' for deployment.

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