Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (indicating mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that this is a POST operation, which aligns with the mutation hint. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide - such as what 'reload' actually does (restarts Redis service? reloads config without restart?), potential side effects, or performance implications. The description neither contradicts annotations nor adds substantial context.

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?

While technically concise (one bracketed phrase), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It uses minimal characters but fails to convey essential information. The structure with brackets and parentheses feels like internal API documentation rather than a helpful user-facing description. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single phrase doesn't earn its place by being 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?

Given this is a mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false) with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'reloadRedis' means operationally, what success/failure looks like, or what the tool returns. With annotations covering basic safety but no output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's purpose and expected outcomes. Compared to the complexity implied by the tool name and annotations, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and the schema fully documents this. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters. The '[settings]' prefix might hint at context but doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics.

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 '[settings] settings.reloadRedis (POST)' is a tautology that restates the name/title with minimal added meaning. It vaguely indicates this is a POST operation for settings related to reloading Redis, but lacks a specific verb-resource statement like 'Reload the Redis configuration in Dokploy settings' that would clarify what the tool actually does. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like dokploy_settings_reloadServer or dokploy_settings_reloadTraefik.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when-not-to-use scenarios. With many sibling tools in the settings category (like dokploy_settings_reloadServer, dokploy_settings_reloadTraefik), there's no indication of how this specific Redis reload differs from other reload operations or when it should be selected.

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