Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, suggesting a safe operation, but the description implies a mutation ('cancelDeployment'), which could be contradictory. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'creates' or 'deletes', so it's not a direct contradiction. The description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations, such as what happens to the deployment (e.g., is it stopped immediately, queued for cancellation, etc.), error conditions, or side effects.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and method, but it includes redundant formatting (brackets, parentheses) and a parameter list that adds little value. It's not verbose, but the structure is minimal and could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 complexity of a deployment cancellation operation, the description is inadequate. No output schema exists, and annotations provide limited behavioral hints. The description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, or what to expect in return, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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 details. The description lists 'applicationId' as a required parameter but adds no semantic meaning (e.g., what format it expects, where to find it, or what it represents). This minimal information doesn't compensate for the 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 ('application.cancelDeployment') and HTTP method ('POST'), which is tautological. It doesn't explain what 'cancelDeployment' means in this context (e.g., stopping an in-progress deployment, queuing a cancellation, etc.). While it mentions the resource ('application'), the action is unclear 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. Sibling tools include 'dokploy_application_killBuild', 'dokploy_application_stop', and 'dokploy_application_clearDeployments', which might serve similar or overlapping purposes, but the description doesn't differentiate this tool from them or specify prerequisites like deployment status.

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