Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear behavioral hints: destructiveHint=true indicates permanent deletion, readOnlyHint=false confirms it's a mutation, idempotentHint=false suggests non-idempotent behavior, and openWorldHint=true implies it can handle unknown IDs. The description adds minimal value by specifying 'POST', but doesn't contradict annotations. However, it lacks context on what 'remove' entails (e.g., whether it's reversible, affects linked applications), which would be helpful given the destructive nature.

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 redundant information like '[gitProvider]' and '(POST)', and uses a bullet point for parameters that adds little value. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on formatting rather than informative content.

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 hint at this), one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the removal's impact, error conditions, or return values, leaving critical gaps for safe agent invocation.

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 only lists 'gitProviderId' as a required parameter without explaining what it is (e.g., an ID from gitProvider_getAll), its format, or where to obtain it. This leaves the single parameter poorly defined, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type constraints.

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 'gitProvider.remove' which is a tautology of the tool name, and includes the HTTP method 'POST' which is redundant with annotations. It doesn't specify what resource is being removed (e.g., a Git provider configuration) or what the removal entails, making the purpose vague. The description fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_gitProvider_getAll' or other removal tools.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing gitProviderId), consequences of removal, or what happens to dependent resources. With many sibling tools for managing Git providers (e.g., create, update, testConnection), the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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