Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, and open-world, which the description does not contradict. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond these hints, such as explaining what 'update' entails (e.g., overwriting settings), authentication requirements, or rate limits, missing opportunities to enhance transparency.

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 under-specified rather than concise; it wastes space on a redundant header and a bare parameter list without explanatory context. It lacks front-loaded purpose and is structured poorly, with every sentence failing to add value beyond what the schema already provides in terms of parameter existence.

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 complexity (7 parameters with nested objects), no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the update operation's scope, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it fits into the SSO workflow, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters (3 required, 4 optional), the description only lists parameter names and types without explaining their meanings, relationships (e.g., oidcConfig vs. samlConfig), or constraints. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'dokploy_sso_update' as '[sso] sso.update (POST)' and provides a parameter list without any explanation of what the tool does. It fails to specify the action (e.g., update SSO provider configuration) or the resource involved, offering no meaningful purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing SSO provider to update, and does not reference sibling tools like 'dokploy_sso_one' or 'dokploy_sso_listProviders' for related operations, leaving usage entirely ambiguous.

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