Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints: destructiveHint=true (changes system state), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), openWorldHint=true (may accept unknown values). The description adds no additional context beyond these annotations, such as what gets cleaned up, potential side effects, or rate limits. However, it does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 but not front-loaded with key information; it starts with redundant details like '[settings]' and HTTP method. It includes a parameter list, which is somewhat structured, but overall it lacks efficiency and could be more streamlined to convey essential details without waste.

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 (destructive mutation with one parameter), no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's effect (e.g., what log cleanup entails), expected outcomes, or error conditions. With annotations covering safety but not operational details, more context is needed for effective use.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists 'cronExpression (any, required)' but does not explain its purpose (e.g., cron schedule for log cleanup), format (e.g., cron syntax examples), or valid values (e.g., null to disable). It adds minimal meaning beyond 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 restates the tool name ('settings.updateLogCleanup') and HTTP method ('POST'), which is tautological. It does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., update log cleanup settings, configure a cron job for log cleanup) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_settings_getLogCleanupStatus' or other settings tools. The purpose is vague beyond the name.

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 is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), related tools (e.g., 'dokploy_settings_getLogCleanupStatus' for checking status), or scenarios for use. The description lacks any usage context.

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