Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (safe), idempotentHint=true (repeatable), openWorldHint=true (flexible). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. It doesn't explain what 'updateServer' entails, potential side effects, or any constraints. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lowered bar with annotations present but adds no 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 extremely brief ('[settings] settings.updateServer (POST)'), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It wastes no words but fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient for its purpose. A single sentence could have been more informative without losing brevity.

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 (readOnlyHint=false) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool updates, what the expected outcome is, or any dependencies. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, but the description fails to provide context about the server update operation, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented because none exist. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 '[settings] settings.updateServer (POST)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and title with minimal additional context. It mentions 'settings' and 'updateServer' but doesn't specify what aspect of the server is being updated or what the tool actually does beyond the obvious. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling settings tools like 'dokploy_settings_updateServerIp' or 'dokploy_settings_updateTraefikConfig'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or specific scenarios for invocation. Given the many sibling tools in the 'dokploy_settings_' namespace, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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