Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that's non-destructive and non-idempotent. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the parameter list. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether registry creation is reversible, or any authentication requirements beyond the provided credentials.

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 reasonably concise with a single-line purpose statement followed by a parameter list. However, the parameter list formatting is inconsistent and the purpose statement could be more front-loaded with essential context. The description wastes space repeating '[registry] registry.create (POST)' which adds little value.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations explaining behavioral nuances, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, or provide any context about registry creation constraints or dependencies. The sibling tools suggest this is part of a larger registry management system, but no integration context is provided.

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 7 parameters, the description carries full burden for explaining parameter semantics. While it lists all parameters with basic types, it provides no meaningful context about what each parameter represents (e.g., what registryUrl format is expected, what imagePrefix does, what serverId refers to). The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the schema structure.

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 creates a registry, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like dokploy_registry_update or dokploy_registry_remove, and the purpose is somewhat vague about what type of registry is being created beyond the 'cloud' registryType parameter.

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 multiple sibling registry tools (dokploy_registry_all, dokploy_registry_one, dokploy_registry_remove, dokploy_registry_update, dokploy_registry_testRegistry), but no indication of when this create operation is appropriate versus update or other registry operations.

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