Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide good behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lower. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them—it doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates, validation behavior, or side effects). No additional context like auth needs or rate limits is provided.

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 poorly structured—it starts with a tautological header, then dumps a parameter list without grouping or prioritization. While not verbose, it fails to front-load key information (the tool's purpose) and includes parameter details that belong in the schema, making it inefficient.

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 (9 parameters, 8 required, mutation tool), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update operation's scope, expected inputs, or what happens on success/failure. Annotations help, but the description leaves critical gaps for a tool with many parameters and no output documentation.

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 merely lists parameter names and types without explaining their meaning, constraints, or relationships (e.g., what serverId refers to, how ipAddress/port relate to connectivity, what serverType 'deploy' vs. 'build' implies, or what command does). This adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool name as '[server] server.update (POST)' which is tautological, then lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (a server configuration), what 'update' means operationally, or how it differs from sibling tools like dokploy_server_create or dokploy_server_remove.

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. With many sibling tools (including dokploy_server_create, dokploy_server_remove, dokploy_server_one, and dokploy_server_all), the description offers no context about prerequisites, when updates are appropriate, or what distinguishes this from other server operations.

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