Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: destructiveHint=true (indicates permanent deletion), readOnlyHint=false (confirms mutation), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), openWorldHint=true (open world). The description adds minimal value beyond this - it confirms the POST method but doesn't provide additional context about what gets destroyed, recovery options, or side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 but poorly structured. It includes the endpoint path '[environment] environment.remove (POST)' which is redundant with the tool name, followed by a basic parameter listing. While concise, it lacks effective front-loading of the most important information about what this tool does and its implications.

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 destructive mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'environment' is in this context, what happens when removed, whether there are dependencies or prerequisites, or what the response looks like. The annotations help but don't compensate for the description's gaps.

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 'environmentId' as a required string parameter without explaining what this ID represents, how to obtain it, or format requirements. This is inadequate compensation for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 an environment, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_environment_delete' (which doesn't exist in the list) or other removal tools in the system. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. There are many sibling tools for deletion/removal (e.g., dokploy_application_delete, dokploy_compose_delete), but no indication of when this specific environment removal tool is appropriate. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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