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, idempotent, open-world operation. The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context—it only notes it's a POST request. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates, effects on existing configurations, or response behavior), leaving gaps despite annotations covering basic safety.

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 under-specified—it's a single line with a parameter list, lacking explanatory content. While not verbose, it doesn't efficiently convey necessary information; the structure includes redundant details like '[whitelabeling]' and the HTTP method without adding value. It's concise but ineffective due to missing context.

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 (updating a multi-field configuration object), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what whitelabeling is, what fields can be updated, how the update behaves, or what to expect in return. Annotations provide some safety context, but the description leaves critical gaps for a mutation 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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists 'whitelabelingConfig' as a required object but doesn't explain its purpose, structure, or the meaning of its nested fields (e.g., appName, logoUrl). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, offering no semantic details beyond what's evident from the parameter name.

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 ('whitelabeling.update') and adds the HTTP method (POST), which is tautological. It doesn't explain what 'whitelabeling' means in this context or what specific aspects are being updated. While it mentions the required parameter, it doesn't articulate the tool's function beyond the name.

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 sibling tools include 'dokploy_whitelabeling_get', 'dokploy_whitelabeling_getPublic', and 'dokploy_whitelabeling_reset', but the description doesn't differentiate this update tool from those read or reset operations. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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