Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which already inform the agent that this is a non-idempotent, destructive write operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as what 'remove' entails (e.g., data deletion, resource cleanup, or irreversible effects). However, it does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 concise but under-specified, consisting of a brief header and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the tool name and method, but the parameter section adds little value due to lack of semantics. While not verbose, it misses opportunities to convey essential information efficiently.

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 indicate destructiveHint=true), no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the consequences of removal, potential side effects, or what to expect upon success/failure, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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%, and the description only lists 'mariadbId (string, required)' without explaining what this parameter represents (e.g., an ID of a MariaDB instance, database name, or deployment identifier). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear beyond its type and requirement.

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 '[mariadb] mariadb.remove (POST)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional information. It indicates the resource (mariadb) and action (remove), but lacks specificity about what exactly is being removed (e.g., a MariaDB database instance, configuration, or deployment) and provides no meaningful differentiation from sibling tools like 'dokploy_mariadb_delete' or other 'remove' tools in the list.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or any sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., 'dokploy_mariadb_delete' or other database removal tools). This leaves the agent with no context for tool selection.

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