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, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as what 'clear' entails (e.g., deletion, archival, reset), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with 'clear' in its name, the lack of clarification on impact is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict annotations.

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 HTTP method, but it includes redundant formatting (brackets, parentheses) and a parameter list that adds little value. While not verbose, it wastes space on restating obvious information instead of providing useful context, reducing its effectiveness.

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 name suggests a mutation ('clear'), annotations provide basic safety hints but no output schema, and schema coverage is 0%, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool does, when to use it, parameter meaning, and expected outcomes. For a tool with potential operational impact, this is inadequate.

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%, with one parameter 'applicationId' documented only as a required string. The description lists the parameter but adds no semantics—it doesn't explain what an 'applicationId' is, how to obtain it, or its format. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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 and title ('application.clearDeployments') without explaining what 'clearDeployments' means. It doesn't specify what resource is being cleared (e.g., deployment history, queued deployments, or active deployments) or what the outcome is. Compared to siblings like 'dokploy_application_cancelDeployment' or 'dokploy_application_cleanQueues', it lacks differentiation, 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after failed deployments), or exclusions. With many sibling tools like 'cancelDeployment' and 'cleanQueues', the absence of usage guidelines is misleading, as an agent cannot infer the correct scenario for invocation.

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