Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal context by specifying the HTTP method (POST), but it doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits like what 'kill' entails (e.g., irreversible termination, effects on the application state, or error handling). However, with annotations covering key safety aspects, the description's addition is limited but not contradictory.

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 but inefficiently structured—it repeats the tool name and includes a parameter list without adding value. It's front-loaded with redundant information, and the single sentence lacks clarity, making it somewhat concise but not well-organized for understanding.

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 (per annotations), one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and complex sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the outcome of killing a build, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader application lifecycle, leaving significant gaps for safe and correct 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?

The description lists 'applicationId' as a required parameter but provides no semantic meaning beyond what the schema indicates (a string with minLength 1). With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining what an applicationId is, where to find it, or format examples, leaving the parameter poorly understood.

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 name and HTTP method ('application.killBuild (POST)'), which implies it kills a build for an application, but it's vague about what 'killBuild' entails—whether it terminates an ongoing build process, cancels a queued build, or something else. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'dokploy_application_cancelDeployment' or 'dokploy_compose_killBuild', leaving the purpose unclear beyond the basic verb+resource.

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. The description lists a parameter but provides no context on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_application_cancelDeployment' or 'dokploy_compose_killBuild'), leaving the agent without usage instructions.

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