Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what's in annotations - it doesn't explain what 'security.update' actually changes, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to existing security settings, or what the response looks like. With annotations covering basic safety profile, the description 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 well-structured. It starts with '[security] security.update (POST)' which is redundant with name/title, then lists parameters without context. While concise, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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?

For a security update tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic safety hints, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what security aspect is being updated, what the parameters mean, what the operation changes, or what to expect as a result. The combination of poor parameter documentation and vague purpose makes this incomplete.

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 none of the 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining what securityId refers to, what username/password are for, or their relationship. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 restates the name/title ('security.update') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what kind of security update this performs (e.g., updating credentials, permissions, or security settings) or what resource is being updated. This is closer to tautology than clear purpose definition.

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. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context requirements, or when this specific security update operation is appropriate compared to other security-related tools (like dokploy_security_create or dokploy_security_delete).

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