Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide basic hints (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. The 'runManually' name implies triggering an action, and POST method suggests mutation, but the description doesn't clarify what happens (e.g., whether this executes a scheduled task immediately, returns execution results, affects schedule status). No rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects are described beyond what annotations imply.

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 brief but under-specified rather than concise. It includes the HTTP method (POST) which is somewhat helpful, but the bracketed '[schedule]' adds little value. The parameter listing is structured but incomplete. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information efficiently.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only provide basic hints, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what 'runManually' entails operationally, or how it differs from other schedule tools. For a mutation tool (implied by POST) with undocumented parameters, more context about execution behavior and outcomes is needed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only lists 'scheduleId (string, required)' without explaining what a scheduleId is, where to find it, format expectations, or its relationship to schedules. No context about valid values or how this parameter affects the manual execution is provided, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 '[schedule] schedule.runManually (POST)' which is a tautology - it essentially repeats the tool name and adds HTTP method information. It doesn't explain what 'runManually' means in the context of schedules (e.g., triggers a scheduled task immediately, bypasses normal timing). The description fails to specify the action's effect on the schedule resource.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like dokploy_schedule_create, dokploy_schedule_update, and dokploy_schedule_list, but the description doesn't indicate this is for manual triggering versus automated scheduling or other schedule operations. No prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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