Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (implying data loss or irreversible changes) and readOnlyHint=false (a write operation), which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations—it specifies the HTTP method (POST) and parameter, but does not explain what 'cleanQueues' entails (e.g., deleting pending tasks, clearing logs, or resetting states), rate limits, or side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description provides some value but lacks depth.

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 and parentheses) and lacks efficient structuring. The parameter listing is minimal but could be more integrated; overall, it avoids verbosity but under-specifies key 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?

Given the tool has destructive annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the outcome of cleaning queues (e.g., what is returned or affected), error conditions, or how it interacts with other compose operations, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 'composeId' as a required parameter but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what a composeId is, where to find it, or format examples). This adds little beyond the schema's structural info, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 'compose.cleanQueues (POST)' which implies it cleans queues for a compose, but this is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'dokploy_compose_cleanQueues'. It lacks a specific verb and resource explanation (e.g., what 'queues' refer to in this context, such as deployment or task queues), and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_application_cleanQueues' or 'dokploy_settings_cleanAllDeploymentQueue'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after deployments or for maintenance), or compare it to similar tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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