Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't explain what 'rollback' means operationally, whether it affects system state, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is. With annotations covering basic hints, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral insight.

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 extremely concise—just one line with a parameter list—but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficient. While it's structured with a clear parameter section, the core description '[rollback] rollback.rollback (POST)' is redundant and uninformative, making the conciseness feel inadequate rather than optimal.

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 likely complexity (performing a rollback operation), the absence of an output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and minimal annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, behavior, parameters, or outcomes, making it inadequate for an agent to understand or use this tool effectively in 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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only lists 'rollbackId (string, required)' without explaining what a rollbackId is, how to obtain it, its format, or its significance. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter's purpose and usage completely 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 '[rollback] rollback.rollback (POST)' which is essentially a tautology of the tool name and title, providing no meaningful explanation of what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being rolled back, what a rollback entails in this context, or how it differs from other rollback-related tools like 'dokploy_rollback_delete'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or what distinguishes this rollback operation from other deployment or management tools in the extensive sibling list.

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