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 operation with open-world hints. The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context—it only lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does (e.g., initiates a payment flow, returns a session URL). For a mutation tool with annotations, this is basic but not misleading.

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 front-loaded with the tool name and method, followed by a structured parameter list. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the parameter formatting is slightly verbose. Every part serves a purpose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 4 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of what the tool returns (e.g., a session ID, URL), error conditions, or side effects. Given the complexity of payment processing, more context is needed for effective use.

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, the description compensates by listing all four parameters with their types and constraints (e.g., tier enum values, serverQuantity minimum implied). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain what each parameter means in context (e.g., what 'tier' represents).

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 creates a Stripe checkout session, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_stripe_createCustomerPortalSession' or 'dokploy_stripe_upgradeSubscription', nor does it explain what a checkout session is in the Dokploy context.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a Stripe account setup), typical use cases, or when to choose this over other payment-related tools in the sibling list.

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