Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) that's non-destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens on success/failure, or how the API key is returned. 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?

While technically concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The parameter listing is structured but provides no meaningful context. The description wastes space on obvious formatting ('POST', bullet points) without adding explanatory value.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description completely fails to provide necessary context about what the tool does, how to use parameters, what it returns, or behavioral considerations. It's inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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%, meaning none of the 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining what they mean (e.g., what 'expiresIn' units are, what 'metadata' contains, how rate limiting parameters interact). This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('user.createApiKey') and lists parameters but doesn't explain what the tool actually does. It's a tautology - it doesn't specify that this creates an API key for a user, what the key is used for, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'dokploy_user_generateToken'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, when this should be used instead of other user-related tools, or any usage constraints.

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