Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that it's a POST request, implying it changes server state, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral context like what 'toggleRequests' affects, side effects, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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's action. It wastes no words but could be more structured (e.g., separating the POST method note). The parameter listing is minimal yet clear. Overall, it's efficient but lacks polish.

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 mutation nature (POST), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome of toggling, potential side effects, or error handling. For a settings modification tool, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate safely.

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%, with one required boolean parameter 'enable'. The description lists the parameter but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., what enabling/disabling does, default state). With 0% coverage, the description partially compensates by naming the parameter but fails to explain its purpose.

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 toggles requests in settings, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what 'requests' refers to (e.g., API requests, monitoring requests) or how this differs from other settings toggle tools like 'dokploy_settings_toggleDashboard'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when-not-to-use scenarios. Given the many sibling tools, this absence leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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