Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (implying data deletion or irreversible changes) and readOnlyHint=false (non-read operation), which the description doesn't contradict. However, it adds minimal context beyond annotations—mentioning it's a POST request hints at mutation but lacks details on what gets destroyed (e.g., old patch files, temporary repos) or any prerequisites. With annotations covering safety, this earns a baseline score for slight added value.

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 not front-loaded with essential information; it starts with redundant details like '[patch]' and HTTP method. While concise, it under-specifies the tool's purpose and parameters, making it inefficient in conveying necessary context. Every sentence doesn't fully earn its place due to lack of 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with one parameter), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'clean' does, the impact of serverId, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'serverId (string, optional)' but provides no semantic meaning—what a serverId is, how to obtain it, or what happens if omitted (e.g., cleans all servers' patch repos). This adds little beyond the schema's type information, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 ('patch.cleanPatchRepos') and HTTP method ('POST') without explaining what 'cleanPatchRepos' means. It doesn't specify what resource is being cleaned (patch repositories) or what 'clean' entails (e.g., delete, archive, remove unused). This is a tautology that adds little beyond the name/title.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., dokploy_patch_delete, dokploy_patch_update, dokploy_settings_cleanAll), the description fails to differentiate this tool's specific use case, such as cleaning patch repositories versus deleting patches or general cleanup operations.

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