Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutation tool (readOnlyHint: false) but not destructive or idempotent. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no information about what 'stop' actually does (graceful shutdown, container termination, service state), whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to dependent resources, or what the response looks like. With annotations covering basic safety profile but no output schema, the description should provide more operational context.

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 (two lines) but wastes space on redundant formatting ('[compose] compose.stop (POST)') that adds no value. The parameter listing is structured but incomplete. While brief, it's not effectively front-loaded with useful 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 mutation tool that stops a compose deployment with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'stop' means operationally, what state the compose enters, how to verify success, or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (deploy, start, redeploy), this leaves critical gaps for agent understanding.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description only lists 'composeId' as a required string parameter without explaining what a composeId is, how to obtain it, format requirements, or what it identifies. This leaves the single parameter completely undocumented in practice.

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 ('compose.stop') without adding meaningful context about what 'stop' means in this system. It doesn't specify what resource is being stopped (a Docker Compose application/stack) or what the effect is. The description is essentially a tautology of the tool name with parameter formatting.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dokploy_compose_start' or 'dokploy_application_stop'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate contexts for stopping a compose deployment.

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