Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide basic hints (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open world), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It doesn't explain what 'toggle' means in practice - whether this is a simple on/off switch, what permissions are required, whether changes are immediate or require restart, or what side effects might occur. For a settings mutation tool, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 technically concise (two lines), but this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity. The structure shows the tool path and lists parameters, but it's not front-loaded with purpose. While not verbose, it's 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 settings mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations explaining behavior beyond basic hints, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameters mean, what happens when invoked, or what to expect in return. This leaves the agent guessing about fundamental aspects of the tool.

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 but provides no semantic meaning. With 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description fails to explain what 'enableDashboard' actually controls (enable what dashboard? where?), what 'serverId' refers to (which server's dashboard?), or whether both parameters are required together. The parameter listing adds minimal value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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.toggleDashboard (POST)' which is tautological - it essentially repeats the tool name and adds HTTP method. It doesn't explain what 'toggleDashboard' actually does - whether it enables/disables a dashboard, what dashboard it refers to, or what the effect is. The description fails to provide a clear verb+resource statement of purpose.

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?

There are absolutely no usage guidelines provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites might be needed, or what context would warrant its use. Given the many sibling tools in the settings category (like dokploy_settings_getWebServerSettings, dokploy_settings_readTraefikConfig, etc.), there's no guidance on when this specific toggle is appropriate.

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