Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations provide basic hints (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open world), but the description adds almost no behavioral context. It doesn't explain what happens when a schedule is created, whether it starts immediately, what permissions are required, or how it interacts with other resources. For a creation tool with 16 parameters, this minimal description fails to provide adequate behavioral transparency beyond what annotations already indicate.

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 technically concise - it's just a parameter list with minimal preamble. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified. The structure is clear (method signature followed by parameter list), but the content is insufficient. It's not verbose, but it's also not helpful.

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 complexity (16 parameters, creation operation), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a schedule does in this system, what gets created, what the expected response looks like, or how to verify successful creation. For a tool that presumably creates scheduled tasks in a deployment system, this minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 16 parameters (13 optional, 3 required), the description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining their meaning, relationships, or constraints. It doesn't clarify what 'cronExpression' format is expected, how 'scheduleType' relates to other parameters like 'applicationId' or 'composeId', or what 'any' type parameters accept. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 - it restates the tool name 'schedule.create' without explaining what a 'schedule' is in this context or what the tool actually does. While it mentions it's a POST operation, it doesn't specify what resource is being created or what the schedule controls. It fails to distinguish this from sibling schedule tools like dokploy_schedule_list, dokploy_schedule_update, or dokploy_schedule_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's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of other schedule tools, or what context requires schedule creation. With multiple sibling schedule tools available, this complete lack of usage guidance is problematic.

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