Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the parameter list, such as what happens upon creation (e.g., server initialization, potential side effects). With annotations covering basic traits, the description provides limited additional 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 structured with a clear header and bullet-pointed parameters, making it easy to scan. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be more front-loaded with a summary sentence before the parameter list.

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 of creating a server with 7 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the outcome, error conditions, or integration with other tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 by explaining parameters. It lists parameters with types and requirements but does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., what 'serverType' entails, format constraints for 'ipAddress' or 'sshKeyId'). This leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter usage.

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 the tool creates a server with a list of parameters, which clarifies the verb (create) and resource (server). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_server_update' or 'dokploy_server_setup', making the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updating existing servers or other server-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for server creation.

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