Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context—it specifies it's a POST operation, implying a write, but doesn't detail effects like whether ports are appended or replaced, or if changes require server reloads. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 name and method, followed by a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the parameter section is minimal and could be more informative. Overall, it's efficient but under-specified in content.

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, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and complex parameters (array of objects with specific fields), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the operation's impact, return values, or error conditions, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 parameter names and types but doesn't explain their semantics—e.g., what 'serverId' refers to, what 'additionalPorts' array contains, or how targetPort and publishedPort relate. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving parameters poorly understood.

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 updates Traefik ports, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_settings_updateTraefikConfig' or 'dokploy_settings_getTraefikPorts', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The purpose is clear but lacks 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for adding ports to existing configurations or initial setup. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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