Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what's in the annotations. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates, side effects, or error handling). With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description adds minimal value, scoring a baseline 3.

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 structured as a parameter list, which is somewhat organized but not front-loaded with a clear purpose statement. It includes unnecessary details like '[schedule] schedule.update (POST)' without adding value, making it verbose in a way that doesn't aid comprehension. However, it avoids excessive fluff, keeping it moderately concise.

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, 4 required), low schema coverage (0%), no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, parameter interactions, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for an AI agent to 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%, so the description must compensate, but it only lists parameter names and types without explaining their meanings or relationships. For example, it doesn't clarify how 'scheduleType' relates to 'applicationId', 'composeId', etc., or what 'cronExpression' format is expected. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the 16 parameters.

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 'schedule.update' without providing meaningful context about what the tool actually does. It lists parameters but doesn't explain the purpose beyond the name, making it vague for an AI agent trying to understand when to use this tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dokploy_schedule_create' or 'dokploy_schedule_delete' from the sibling list. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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