Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false), open-world (openWorldHint=true) operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the implied 'create' action. It doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, what happens on duplicate names, or the response format. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds minimal value, scoring a baseline 3.

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 poorly structured. It front-loads with '[sshKey] sshKey.create (POST)' which is redundant, then lists parameters without context. While concise, it wastes space on obvious information (POST method) instead of explaining purpose. 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 a creation tool with 5 parameters (4 required), 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations only covering basic hints, the description is incomplete. It lacks purpose, usage guidelines, parameter meanings, and behavioral details like response structure or error conditions. For a tool that creates security-sensitive resources (SSH keys), this leaves significant gaps for the 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 only types and constraints without meaning. The description lists parameter names but adds no semantics (e.g., 'name' for the SSH key identifier, 'privateKey/publicKey' as the key pair, 'organizationId' to associate the key). It doesn't explain formats (e.g., PEM for keys) or dependencies. For 5 parameters with 0% coverage, this is inadequate 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 states 'sshKey.create (POST)' which is a tautology of the tool name and HTTP method, not a clear purpose. It lists parameters but doesn't explain what the tool actually does (creates an SSH key resource). While it distinguishes from siblings like 'sshKey_all' or 'sshKey_remove' by implying creation, it lacks a specific verb-resource statement like 'Creates a new SSH key in the Dokploy system'.

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 (e.g., needing an organizationId), when not to use it (e.g., for existing keys), or refer to sibling tools like 'sshKey_generate' (for auto-generating keys) or 'sshKey_update' (for modifying keys). The agent must infer usage from the parameter list alone.

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