Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (implying data loss or irreversible changes) and readOnlyHint=false (confirming it's a mutation). The description does not contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. It specifies the HTTP method (POST) and required parameter, but does not elaborate on what 'cleanQueues' entails (e.g., whether it deletes queue entries, stops processes). With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but lacks detailed behavioral traits.

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 lacks efficient structuring. It wastes space on obvious details (e.g., 'POST') without adding informative content. While concise, it under-specifies rather than being efficiently informative.

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 destructive nature (annotations: destructiveHint=true), no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the outcome (e.g., what 'cleanQueues' returns or affects), prerequisites, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with potential data loss, more context is needed to guide safe usage.

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 string but does not explain its purpose (e.g., identifier for the target application), format, or constraints. This adds minimal semantics beyond the schema's type and requirement, insufficient to compensate for the low coverage.

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.cleanQueues') and HTTP method ('POST'), which is tautological. It does not specify what 'cleanQueues' means (e.g., clearing deployment queues, removing pending tasks) or what resource it acts upon beyond the generic 'application' context. This lacks a clear verb+resource distinction, making the purpose vague.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'dokploy_application_clearDeployments' and 'dokploy_compose_cleanQueues', which might serve similar purposes, but the description does not differentiate or provide any context for selection. This absence of usage instructions is misleading for an agent.

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