Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover key behavioral traits. The description adds no additional context beyond these annotations, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. Since annotations are comprehensive, the bar is lower, but the description fails to add any value beyond them.

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 poorly structured. It includes redundant information (tool name and parameter listing) without front-loading key details. While not verbose, it lacks efficiency as it fails to convey useful information beyond what's already obvious from structured fields.

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 (updating middleware Traefik config), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, its impact, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand its 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 description must compensate. It only lists 'traefikConfig (string, required)', which mirrors the schema without explaining what this parameter represents (e.g., configuration format, content, or purpose). No semantic details are provided, leaving the parameter meaning unclear.

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 and title without adding meaningful context. It mentions 'settings.updateMiddlewareTraefikConfig (POST)' which is tautological, and 'Parameters: - traefikConfig (string, required)' merely repeats schema information. No specific verb or resource clarification is provided beyond what's already in 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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or sibling tools (e.g., dokploy_settings_readMiddlewareTraefikConfig or other Traefik-related tools), leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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