Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that it's a POST request, implying a write action, which aligns with annotations. However, it lacks details on what 'env' contains, potential side effects, or error conditions, leaving behavioral gaps despite annotations.

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 HTTP method, but includes a redundant header '[settings] settings.writeTraefikEnv (POST)' that adds little value. The parameter list is clear but could be more integrated into a cohesive 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?

For a write tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and complex sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the purpose of 'env', when 'serverId' is needed, what the tool returns, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving significant gaps for 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 description must compensate. It lists parameters 'env' and 'serverId' with types but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what 'env' represents, format of 'serverId', default behavior if 'serverId' is omitted). This leaves parameters largely undocumented beyond basic schema.

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 writes Traefik environment settings, which is a specific action ('writeTraefikEnv') on a resource ('settings'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_settings_readTraefikEnv' or 'dokploy_settings_updateTraefikConfig', leaving the scope and differentiation unclear.

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. With many sibling tools related to Traefik settings (e.g., readTraefikEnv, updateTraefikConfig), there is no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for this write operation.

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