Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive or idempotent. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no information about what gets configured, whether this affects existing domains, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is. For a configuration tool with openWorldHint=true, more context about system impact would be helpful.

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 inefficiently structured. It wastes space repeating '[settings] settings.assignDomainServer' and '(POST)' while providing minimal useful information. The parameter listing is better placed in the schema. However, it's not excessively verbose.

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 configuration tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic safety hints, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what this tool actually accomplishes, what system components it affects, what the expected outcome is, or provide any meaningful parameter guidance.

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?

The description lists parameters with basic types but provides no semantic meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'host' represents, what the certificateType options mean in practice, when letsEncryptEmail is needed, or what the https flag controls. It merely repeats parameter names already visible in the schema without adding value.

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/title ('settings.assignDomainServer') and adds '(POST)' which is redundant with HTTP method. It doesn't explain what 'assignDomainServer' actually does - whether it configures domain settings, associates a domain with a server, or performs some other operation. The purpose remains vague beyond the name.

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 in the settings category (like dokploy_settings_updateServer, dokploy_settings_updateTraefikConfig, etc.), there's no indication of when domain server assignment is appropriate versus other configuration operations.

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