Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (implying deletion) and readOnlyHint=false (non-read operation), which the description aligns with by implying removal. However, the description adds minimal context beyond annotations—it doesn't specify if removal is permanent, requires permissions, or has side effects. With annotations covering safety, it earns a baseline score for not contradicting them but adds little extra behavioral insight.

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. While not verbose, it could be more polished and informative without sacrificing conciseness, earning a middling score for being somewhat clear but underdeveloped.

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 (annotations show destructiveHint=true), no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome of removal, error conditions, or dependencies, leaving gaps for a mutation tool. The annotations help but don't fully compensate for the lack of descriptive detail.

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 'destinationId' as a required string parameter but provides no semantic details—what a destination ID is, its format, or where to obtain it. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural information, 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 restates the tool name ('destination.remove') and adds the HTTP method (POST), which is tautological. It doesn't specify what a 'destination' is in this context or what 'remove' entails beyond deletion. While it mentions the required parameter, it doesn't clarify the action's scope or effect, making the purpose vague.

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 sibling tools list includes 'dokploy_destination_all', 'dokploy_destination_create', 'dokploy_destination_one', and 'dokploy_destination_update', but the description doesn't differentiate this removal tool from them or indicate prerequisites like needing an existing destination ID.

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