Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and is open-world, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It does not explain what 'reloadServer' entails (e.g., whether it restarts a service, applies configuration changes, or impacts system state), nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or rate limits. However, it does not contradict the annotations, so it avoids a lower score.

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 overly concise to the point of being cryptic ('[settings] settings.reloadServer (POST)'), lacking complete sentences or clear structure. It fails to front-load essential information, making it inefficient for quick understanding rather than truly concise.

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 tool's complexity (a POST operation likely affecting server state), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'reloadServer' means, expected outcomes, or any behavioral nuances, and there is no output schema to compensate. Annotations provide basic hints but do not fully cover the tool's purpose or effects, leaving significant gaps.

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, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description does not add parameter information, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is needed.

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.reloadServer (POST)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and title with minimal context. It mentions 'settings' and 'reloadServer' but lacks a clear, specific verb-resource statement explaining what the tool actually does (e.g., reloads server settings, restarts a service, or refreshes configuration). It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_settings_reloadTraefik' or 'dokploy_settings_updateServer'.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_settings_reloadTraefik' for Traefik-specific reloads). This leaves the agent without any usage direction.

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