Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as explaining what 'delete' entails (e.g., permanent removal, side effects, or confirmation requirements), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's impact.

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 sparse parameter list that adds little value. While not verbose, it could be more structured and 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 tool's destructive nature (annotations hint at this), one parameter with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details like success/error responses, dependencies, or safety warnings, making it inadequate for informed use in this complex environment.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter, the description only lists 'applicationId' as required without adding meaning, such as what an application ID is, where to find it, or format examples. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving the parameter's semantics 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 states the tool deletes an application ('application.delete') and specifies the required parameter 'applicationId', which clarifies the verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling deletion tools like 'dokploy_compose_delete' or 'dokploy_ai_delete', leaving the scope vague beyond the generic 'application' term.

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, such as other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'dokploy_application_cancelDeployment' or 'dokploy_application_remove'). It also lacks prerequisites, warnings, or context for invoking this destructive operation, offering minimal usage direction.

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