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 removal action. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it doesn't specify if removal is permanent, requires specific permissions, or affects running services. Since annotations cover key safety aspects (destructive, non-idempotent), the description's lack of extra detail is acceptable but not comprehensive, warranting a score above baseline but not perfect.

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 mixes tool path ('[mounts] mounts.remove'), HTTP method ('POST'), and parameter listing in a single line without clear separation. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, the formatting is cluttered and doesn't front-load critical information (e.g., purpose first). It could be more readable with better organization.

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 tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the outcome of removal (e.g., success response, error cases), dependencies, or system impact. Given the complexity implied by annotations (destructive, non-idempotent), more context is needed to guide safe usage, making this description incomplete for effective tool 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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description only lists 'mountId' as a required string without explaining what a mount ID is, how to obtain it, or its format (e.g., UUID). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear to the agent.

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 restates the tool name ('mounts.remove') without clarifying what 'mounts' are or what 'remove' entails beyond deletion. It mentions 'POST' as the HTTP method, which is redundant with the tool's action. While it implies a deletion operation, it lacks specificity about the resource being removed (e.g., storage mounts in a deployment environment) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_mounts_create' or 'dokploy_mounts_update'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing mount ID), conditions for safe removal, or what happens after deletion (e.g., impact on associated services). With many sibling tools for mounts (create, update, list), the absence of usage context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate scenarios.

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