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 a deletion action ('remove'). The description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (POST), which isn't covered by annotations, but it lacks details on side effects (e.g., impact on users with this role) 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 brief and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it includes redundant formatting (brackets and parentheses) that doesn't add clarity. It could be more streamlined by integrating the parameter list more naturally, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome of removal, potential errors, or system impacts, leaving gaps for a mutation tool with significant behavioral implications.

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, but it only lists 'roleName' as a required string parameter without explaining its format, constraints, or examples. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap effectively.

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 custom role, which is a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('customRole'), but it's vague about what 'customRole' refers to in the context of the Dokploy system. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_customRole_create' or 'dokploy_customRole_update', leaving ambiguity about the exact scope of the operation.

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, such as 'dokploy_customRole_update' for modifying roles or 'dokploy_customRole_all' for listing them. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context provided, making it unclear when this tool is appropriate.

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