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 doesn't contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context—it specifies it's a POST request, implying a mutation, but doesn't detail effects like whether it removes Git integration, impacts deployments, or requires specific permissions. With annotations covering basic hints, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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, bullet points) that doesn't add value. It's concise but could be more structured and informative, as the parameter listing is minimal and doesn't enhance clarity.

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 (a mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what disconnecting a Git provider entails, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. Annotations provide basic hints, but the description doesn't fill the gaps for effective agent use.

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 doesn't explain its meaning (e.g., ID format, source, or relation to the application). It adds minimal semantics beyond the schema's structural info, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'disconnectGitProvider' for an application, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_compose_disconnectGitProvider' or explain what disconnecting a Git provider means in this context. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation and detail.

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 description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., if a Git provider must be connected first), exclusions, or related tools like 'dokploy_application_saveGitProvider'. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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