Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations provide significant behavioral information: destructiveHint=true indicates permanent deletion, readOnlyHint=false confirms it's a mutation, idempotentHint=false suggests non-idempotent behavior, and openWorldHint=true implies it may accept unknown organization IDs. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. However, it doesn't contradict 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 brief with two lines, but it's poorly structured and includes redundant information. The first line '[organization] organization.delete (POST)' is confusing and adds little value. The parameter listing is minimal. While concise, it lacks effective front-loading of useful information and includes formatting that doesn't enhance clarity.

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 deletion tool with 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the consequences of deletion, what happens to associated resources, or any confirmation requirements. The annotations cover safety aspects, but the description should provide more operational context given the tool's critical nature.

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 'organizationId (string, required)' as a parameter, but this merely repeats what the input schema already shows with 0% schema description coverage. It adds no semantic meaning about what organizationId represents, format expectations, or how to obtain valid IDs. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 '[organization] organization.delete (POST)' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, with minimal added clarity. It mentions 'delete' as the verb and 'organization' as the resource, but lacks specificity about what deletion entails or its scope. This is a tautology that provides little beyond the name.

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 include dokploy_organization_all, dokploy_organization_one, dokploy_organization_create, and dokploy_organization_update, there is no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus other organization operations. There are no prerequisites, warnings, or contextual usage instructions.

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