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 this is a POST request, implying a write operation, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral context like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'save' entails (e.g., overwriting existing keys, validation). With annotations covering basic traits, the description adds minimal extra value.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it includes redundant brackets and formatting (e.g., '[settings]') that don't add value. It efficiently states the action but could be cleaner without the extra markup.

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 of saving sensitive SSH keys, the lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., success response, error handling), security implications, or how this integrates with other tools. For a mutation tool with no output schema, more context is needed.

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 only lists the parameter name 'sshPrivateKey' without explaining its format (e.g., PEM format, passphrase handling), purpose, or constraints. This leaves critical semantics undocumented, failing to bridge the coverage gap.

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 the tool saves an SSH private key, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_sshKey_create' or 'dokploy_settings_cleanSSHPrivateKey', leaving ambiguity about how this differs from other SSH key management operations.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., whether this is for system-wide settings vs. user-specific keys), or what happens after saving. Without this, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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