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), idempotent (idempotentHint: true), and open-world (openWorldHint: true) operation. The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context—it mentions the POST method and parameter types, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens on partial updates. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description adds some value but is not rich in behavioral disclosure.

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, but includes redundant information (e.g., repeating parameter details that are in the schema) and lacks efficient structuring. Sentences like 'Parameters: - name (string, optional)' are verbose for listing types without added value, making it somewhat bloated despite its short length.

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 has no output schema, annotations provide safety hints but not full behavioral context. The description lacks details on return values, error conditions, or operational constraints (e.g., authentication needs). For a mutation tool with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this description is incomplete, leaving gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 (e.g., 'name (string, optional)'), but doesn't explain their meanings, constraints (e.g., minLength for name), or formats (e.g., date format for lastUsedAt). It partially compensates by identifying required vs. optional parameters, but fails to add sufficient semantic context beyond what's inferable from the schema structure.

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 an SSH key with specific parameters (name, description, lastUsedAt, sshKeyId), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'dokploy_sshKey_create' or 'dokploy_sshKey_remove', leaving ambiguity about when to use update versus other SSH key operations.

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. The description lists parameters but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing SSH key ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'dokploy_sshKey_create' for new keys or 'dokploy_sshKey_remove' for deletion.

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