Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only operation with open-world semantics. The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) and required parameter, but doesn't elaborate on effects like whether removal is permanent or if there are side effects.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it includes redundant formatting (brackets, parentheses) and a parameter list that doesn't add value. It's somewhat structured but could be more streamlined.

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 destructive nature (per annotations), one parameter with no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome, error conditions, or provide enough context for safe use, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 'invitationId' as a required string without explaining what it is, where to get it, or its format. This adds little meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool removes an invitation from an organization, which is a specific verb ('removeInvitation') and resource ('organization'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_organization_inviteMember' or 'dokploy_organization_allInvitations', leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing invitation ID, or when it's appropriate to remove an invitation rather than update or manage it through other means.

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