Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide critical behavioral hints: destructiveHint=true indicates irreversible data loss, readOnlyHint=false confirms it's a mutation, idempotentHint=false suggests repeated calls may have side effects, and openWorldHint=true implies the mysqlId may not be pre-known. The description adds no context beyond these annotations, such as what exactly gets destroyed (e.g., database, volumes, backups), authentication requirements, or rate limits. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar set by their presence.

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 with only two lines, but it's poorly structured and under-specified. The first line '[mysql] mysql.remove (POST)' is redundant with the tool name, and the parameters section merely repeats the schema without adding value. While brief, it wastes space on unhelpful information rather than being efficiently informative.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: what the tool removes (e.g., a MySQL instance, associated data), the consequences of removal, any confirmation steps, or error handling. Annotations cover safety aspects, but the description doesn't add necessary operational details, making it inadequate for safe and correct usage.

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 description lists 'mysqlId' as a required parameter but provides no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states (a string with minLength 1). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what mysqlId represents (e.g., a database identifier, container name, or UUID), its format, or where to find it. This leaves the parameter's purpose ambiguous.

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 'mysql.remove (POST)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and HTTP method without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being removed (a MySQL database instance, container, or configuration) or what the removal entails. While it mentions 'mysql' as a resource type, this is already evident from the tool name, making it minimally informative.

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. Given the sibling tools list includes other MySQL-related tools like 'dokploy_mysql_create', 'dokploy_mysql_update', and 'dokploy_mysql_deploy', there is no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where removal is appropriate versus other operations. This leaves the agent without 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.