Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but it also doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond what's already implied by 'cancelDeployment'. It doesn't explain what happens to the deployment, whether it's reversible, or what the response looks like. With annotations covering safety, this gets a baseline score.

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 extremely concise - just two lines showing the HTTP method and parameter. While this is efficient, it's arguably too terse given the lack of explanatory content. However, it's well-structured and front-loaded with the essential technical details.

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 tool that performs an action like 'cancelDeployment', the description is insufficient. There's no output schema, no explanation of what happens when deployment is cancelled, no error conditions mentioned, and no context about what 'compose' represents in this system. The annotations help with safety understanding, but the description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the single parameter. The description only lists the parameter name without explaining what 'composeId' represents, how to obtain it, or what format it should be in. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 and HTTP method without explaining what 'cancelDeployment' means in the context of 'compose'. It mentions the required parameter but doesn't clarify what resource is being acted upon or what the cancellation entails. This is a tautology rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 sibling tools like 'dokploy_application_cancelDeployment' and 'dokploy_compose_stop' that might serve similar purposes, but the description doesn't differentiate this tool from them or explain when cancellation is appropriate versus other actions.

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