Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no mention of billing implications, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the existing subscription. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds minimal value.

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 inefficiently structured. It wastes space repeating the tool name and 'POST' method, then provides a minimal parameter list. While concise, it fails to use its limited space effectively to convey meaningful information.

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 subscription upgrade tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic safety, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the operation's effects, return values, error conditions, or relationship to billing systems - critical context for a financial transaction tool.

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 merely lists parameter names and types without explaining their meaning (what 'tier' represents, what 'serverQuantity' measures, what 'isAnnual' affects). This adds almost no semantic value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 restates the tool name ('stripe.upgradeSubscription') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being upgraded (presumably a Stripe subscription) or what 'upgrade' entails. This is closer to a tautology than a clear 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing subscription), when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be relevant (like downgrade or cancel). This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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