Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (write operation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and openWorldHint=true (supports unknown inputs). The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations—it doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., overwrites file, merges configs, requires specific permissions), potential side effects, or error conditions. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the bar is lower, but the description adds no value beyond the structured data.

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 well-structured—it starts with a redundant '[settings] settings.updateTraefikFile (POST)' and follows with a basic parameter list. While concise, it lacks front-loaded purpose and wastes space on obvious details (POST method). The parameter list is clear but could be integrated into a more informative sentence.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety/idempotency, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, parameter meanings, usage context, or expected outcomes. For a write operation (update) in a complex system with many sibling tools, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to infer correct usage.

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 parameters (path, traefikConfig, serverId) with types and required status, but adds minimal semantics—it doesn't explain what 'path' refers to (file path? URL path?), what format 'traefikConfig' expects (YAML? JSON?), or when 'serverId' is needed. For a tool with 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient compensation.

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 with minimal context: '[settings] settings.updateTraefikFile (POST)' essentially repeats the name and adds HTTP method. It lacks a clear verb+resource statement explaining what 'updateTraefikFile' actually does—does it modify, replace, or create a Traefik configuration file? No sibling differentiation is provided despite many related Traefik tools in the sibling list (e.g., dokploy_settings_readTraefikFile, 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes dokploy_settings_readTraefikFile, dokploy_settings_updateTraefikConfig, and dokploy_settings_writeTraefikEnv, but the description does not mention any of these or provide context for choosing this tool over others. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or usage scenarios described.

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