Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide some behavioral hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds almost no context beyond what's already in annotations. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (partial vs full updates), whether authentication is required, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but fails to provide meaningful behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

While technically concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It wastes space on a redundant API endpoint notation ('[registry] registry.update (POST)') and a bare parameter list without grouping or prioritization. The information is poorly organized and doesn't front-load the most important details about the tool's purpose.

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 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'registry' is in this context, what fields can be updated, what the expected response looks like, or any error conditions. The description fails to provide the necessary context for effective tool use.

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 10 parameters (1 required, 9 optional), the description merely lists parameter names without any semantic explanation. It doesn't clarify what 'registryId' identifies, what 'imagePrefix' accepts, what 'registryType: cloud' means, or how parameters relate to each other. The description fails to compensate for the complete 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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name ('registry.update') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (a container registry configuration), what 'update' means in this context, or how it differs from sibling registry tools like 'dokploy_registry_create' or 'dokploy_registry_remove'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing registry to update), when this should be used instead of creating a new registry, or any constraints on usage. With many sibling tools available, this lack of differentiation is problematic.

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