Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear behavioral hints: destructiveHint=true indicates data removal, readOnlyHint=false confirms mutation, idempotentHint=false suggests non-idempotent behavior, and openWorldHint=true implies flexible input. The description adds minimal context by specifying the HTTP method (POST), which is useful but doesn't contradict annotations. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error conditions that would enrich understanding beyond annotations.

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 inefficiently structured. The first line '[patch] patch.delete (POST)' is redundant with the tool name and title, and the parameter listing adds little semantic value. While concise, it wastes space on repetition rather than providing useful information, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 destructive nature (destructiveHint=true), no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a patch is, the consequences of deletion, potential return values, or error handling. For a mutation tool with significant behavioral implications, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how to invoke it safely and effectively.

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 'patchId (string, required)' but provides no semantic meaning—what a patchId is, where to find it, or format constraints. The description repeats the parameter name without adding value beyond the schema's structural definition, failing to clarify usage or context for the single required parameter.

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 '[patch] patch.delete (POST)' which is a tautology of the tool name 'dokploy_patch_delete' and doesn't clarify what a 'patch' resource is or what deletion entails. It provides the verb 'delete' but lacks specificity about the resource scope or effect. Sibling tools like 'dokploy_patch_one' and 'dokploy_patch_create' suggest this is part of a patch management system, but the description doesn't differentiate this tool from them.

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. There are multiple patch-related sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_patch_create', 'dokploy_patch_one', 'dokploy_patch_update'), but the description doesn't indicate when deletion is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or what happens after deletion. This leaves the agent with no contextual usage information.

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