Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide critical behavioral information: destructiveHint=true (this destroys resources), readOnlyHint=false (it's a mutation), idempotentHint=false (repeated calls may have different effects), and openWorldHint=true (may accept unknown parameters). The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare - no information about what gets removed, permissions required, or system 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 technically concise but inefficiently structured. It wastes space repeating the tool name and HTTP method while providing minimal useful information. The parameter listing adds little value without semantic context. While brief, it's not effectively front-loaded with actionable information.

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 destructive cluster management tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'worker' represents in this context, what happens when removed, whether this affects running applications, or what the response contains. The annotations help but don't compensate for the missing operational context.

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, the description must compensate but fails to do so. It merely lists parameter names (nodeId, serverId) without explaining what they represent, their format, or how they relate to the removal operation. The agent cannot understand what values to provide or their significance in the context of worker removal.

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 worker from a cluster, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_cluster_addWorker' or 'dokploy_cluster_getNodes' - it merely restates the name/title with minimal context. The purpose is 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's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or when this operation is appropriate versus other cluster management tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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