Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what 'update' entails (e.g., overwrites config, requires admin permissions) or side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but offers minimal additional 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 concise and front-loaded, stating the tool's purpose in the first line. It wastes no words, though the parameter listing is redundant with the schema. The structure is efficient, but could be improved by integrating parameter details more meaningfully.

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 updates a critical configuration (Traefik) with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the update does (e.g., reloads Traefik, affects web server behavior), error handling, or return values. Annotations help, but the description does not fill gaps for a mutation tool with significant impact.

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 only indicates 'traefikConfig' is a required string. The description lists the parameter but adds no meaning—no explanation of what the config should contain, format (e.g., YAML, JSON), or examples. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly defined.

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 the web server Traefik configuration, which is a specific verb (update) and resource (web server Traefik config). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_settings_updateTraefikConfig' or 'dokploy_settings_updateMiddlewareTraefikConfig', leaving ambiguity about which Traefik config it targets. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after reading configs), or exclusions. The description only lists parameters without usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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