Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a POST operation, implying a state change. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'stop' means operationally (e.g., graceful shutdown, immediate termination, effect on dependencies) or any side effects. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds little extra value.

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 includes redundant information (the tool name in brackets) and a parameter list that merely repeats the schema. While not verbose, it wastes space on obvious details instead of adding value. A single concise sentence explaining the action would be more effective.

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?

For a state-change tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool is invoked (e.g., success/failure responses, time to stop, error conditions). Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., start, deploy, reload), more context on behavior and outcomes is needed for the agent to use it correctly.

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%, and the description only lists 'applicationId' as a required parameter without explaining what it represents (e.g., UUID, name, how to obtain it) or its format. For a single parameter with no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate by providing meaningful semantic context, leaving the agent guessing about valid inputs.

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.stop') without adding meaningful context about what 'stop' entails. It mentions the required parameter but doesn't explain what stopping an application does (e.g., halts processes, stops containers, changes state). While it includes the HTTP method (POST), this doesn't clarify the action's purpose beyond the obvious name.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dokploy_application_start' or 'dokploy_application_reload'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the application must be running), consequences of stopping, or when it's appropriate versus other state-change tools. Sibling tools include many application management options, but no differentiation is offered.

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