Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld operation. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond them. It mentions the HTTP method (POST), which suggests a state-changing operation, but doesn't explain what 'deactivate' entails, whether it's reversible, or what permissions might be required. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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?

While technically concise (one line), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on redundant information like the tool name and HTTP method without providing meaningful context. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond what's already obvious from the tool name.

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 this is a mutation tool (deactivation) with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens when a license key is deactivated, what the expected outcome is, or any side effects. While annotations provide some behavioral hints, the description fails to give the agent enough context to understand the tool's purpose and effects in the broader system.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. It correctly avoids mentioning any parameters, which aligns with the empty input schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't mislead about parameter requirements.

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 "[licenseKey] licenseKey.deactivate (POST)" is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and adds the HTTP method. It doesn't explain what 'deactivate' means in this context or what resource is being acted upon. While it includes the verb 'deactivate' and resource 'licenseKey', it lacks specificity about what the operation actually does.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'dokploy_licenseKey_activate' and 'dokploy_licenseKey_validate' that appear related, but no context is given about when deactivation is appropriate versus activation or validation. No prerequisites, conditions, 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.