Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: false, openWorldHint: true). The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name. It implies a POST request, which suggests mutation, aligning with annotations. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error handling.

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 doesn't add clarity. It's concise but could be more structured and informative without extra fluff.

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) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the outcome of removal, potential errors, or dependencies. For a critical operation like certificate deletion, more context is needed to ensure safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'certificateId' as a required string parameter but provides no semantic meaning, format, or examples. This adds little value beyond the schema, failing to clarify what a certificateId is or where to obtain it.

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 removes a certificate ('certificates.remove'), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_certificates_delete' (which doesn't exist in the list) or other removal tools in the system, leaving the scope ambiguous. It's clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'dokploy_certificates_all' or 'dokploy_certificates_one' might be related, but no comparison is made.

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