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. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (POST), which isn't covered by annotations, but it doesn't detail consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion, impact on linked resources) or error conditions beyond what annotations provide.

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 around '[domain]') and a parameter list that repeats schema info without adding value. It could be more streamlined by focusing on unique insights.

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 (destructiveHint=true), no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the deletion's effects, return values, or error handling, leaving gaps in understanding for safe and correct 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%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'domainId' as a required string parameter, which matches the schema, but adds no semantic context (e.g., what a domainId is, format examples, or where to find it). This leaves the parameter meaning unclear beyond basic type information.

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 deletes a domain ('domain.delete') and mentions the required parameter 'domainId', which clarifies the verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_domain_create' or 'dokploy_domain_update', leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 (e.g., 'dokploy_domain_update' for modifications or 'dokploy_domain_one' for viewing). The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing domain, or exclusions, like not being usable for non-domain resources.

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