Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it doesn't explain what 'security.create' entails (e.g., whether it creates user credentials, what permissions are needed, if it sends notifications, or what happens on conflict). However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present but adds minimal value.

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 not front-loaded with purpose; it starts with a tautological label and a parameter list. The two-line structure is efficient, but the content is under-specified rather than concise—it wastes space on obvious details (POST method, parameter names) instead of explaining the tool's function. It could be more effectively structured with a clear purpose statement first.

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 (a write operation with 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering basic hints), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: what security entity is created, what the parameters mean, expected outcomes, error conditions, or relation to sibling tools. For a create operation in a security context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to infer correct usage.

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 lists parameter names (applicationId, username, password) but provides no semantic meaning—what these parameters represent, their format constraints (e.g., username rules, password complexity), or how they relate to the security object being created. This adds little value beyond the schema's type and required information.

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 'security.create (POST)' which is a tautology of the tool name and HTTP method, and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what kind of security object is being created (e.g., user account, authentication credential, security policy) or what resource is affected. The verb 'create' is generic and doesn't distinguish this from other 'create' tools in the sibling list.

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. There are sibling tools like dokploy_security_delete, dokploy_security_one, and dokploy_security_update, but the description doesn't explain how this create operation relates to them or when it's appropriate. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.

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