Dokploy MCP Server

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what the annotations provide. Annotations already indicate it is destructive (destructiveHint: true), non-idempotent (idempotentHint: false), and open-world (openWorldHint: true). The description adds no additional context about what 'removeDeployment' entails (e.g., whether it deletes associated resources, requires specific permissions, or has side effects). However, it does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 but poorly structured. It includes the tool name and HTTP method upfront, followed by a parameter list, but the formatting is minimal and lacks clear separation. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, the information is presented in a way that is not optimally front-loaded or easy to parse, with some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'deployment').

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's destructive nature (annotations: destructiveHint: true) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the consequences of removal, potential errors, or what happens to associated resources. For a destructive operation with one parameter, the description should provide more context to ensure safe and correct usage, but it falls short.

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?

The description lists the parameter 'deploymentId' but provides no semantic meaning beyond what the schema indicates (string, required). With schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not compensate by explaining what a deploymentId is, its format, or where to obtain it. This leaves the parameter poorly understood, failing to add meaningful value over 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 states the tool name and HTTP method ('deployment.removeDeployment (POST)') but lacks a clear, specific purpose statement. It does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., 'deletes a deployment' or 'removes a deployment from the system'), and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_deployment_killProcess' or 'dokploy_application_delete'. The description is tautological, essentially restating the name.

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, conditions for use, or any sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., 'dokploy_deployment_killProcess' for stopping a process vs. removing a deployment). There is no explicit or implied context for usage.

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