Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that it's a POST request to reload Traefik, which implies a state-changing operation that likely causes Traefik to reload its configuration. This provides useful context beyond annotations about what gets reloaded, though it doesn't specify potential side effects like service interruption or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise at just two lines, but this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. The structure shows the endpoint path and HTTP method upfront, which is useful, but the parameter listing lacks explanatory value. While not verbose, it's arguably under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

For a tool that performs a potentially impactful operation (reloading Traefik configuration) with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'reload' entails, what gets reloaded, potential side effects, success/failure indicators, or relationship to other Traefik tools. Given the complexity of configuration management and the absence of output documentation, more context is needed for safe usage.

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 mentions 'Parameters: - serverId (string, optional)' but provides no semantic meaning for this parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain what serverId refers to, whether it's required in certain contexts, or what happens if omitted. It simply repeats the parameter name without adding meaningful context beyond what's in the bare 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 states '[settings] settings.reloadTraefik (POST)' which is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It mentions 'reloadTraefik' which suggests reloading Traefik configuration, but doesn't specify what resource is being acted upon or what the tool actually does beyond the name. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'dokploy_settings_reloadServer' or 'dokploy_settings_reloadRedis'.

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. There are multiple reload-related tools in the sibling list (reloadServer, reloadRedis) and many Traefik-related tools (readTraefikConfig, updateTraefikConfig, etc.), but the description offers no context about when this specific reload operation is appropriate versus other configuration management tools.

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