Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by implying deletion. The description adds minimal context about the deleteVolumes parameter, but doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits like irreversible effects, permissions required, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method. It efficiently lists parameters without unnecessary details. However, the formatting with brackets and parentheses could be slightly cleaner for readability.

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 destructive nature (destructiveHint=true), no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the outcome of deletion, error handling, or confirmations. For a high-risk operation, 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%, but the description lists parameters and their types, adding basic semantics beyond the schema. It clarifies that deleteVolumes is boolean, but doesn't explain what composeId refers to or the implications of setting deleteVolumes to true/false. With two parameters, this provides some value but leaves gaps.

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 clearly states the tool deletes a compose resource, specifying the required parameters. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on deletion rather than creation, update, or other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete tools like dokploy_application_delete or dokploy_ai_delete.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the compose must be stopped first, or what happens to associated resources. It doesn't mention when not to use it or refer to sibling tools for related operations.

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