Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and operates in an open world. The description adds no behavioral details beyond this—it does not explain what 'marking for deletion' entails (e.g., if it's reversible, requires permissions, or affects system state). However, it does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present but adds minimal context.

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 wastes space by repeating the name and listing parameters without explanation. It could be more structured by separating purpose from parameters, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what the tool does, when to use it, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes. Annotations provide some safety hints, but the description fails to compensate for the missing context, especially for a tool that likely modifies system state.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description lists parameters (id, type, filePath) but does not explain their meanings—what 'id' refers to, what 'application' vs 'compose' types indicate, or what 'filePath' represents. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure, insufficient for the low coverage.

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.markFileForDeletion') and HTTP method ('POST'), which is tautological. It does not explain what 'markFileForDeletion' means—whether it schedules deletion, flags a file, or performs another action. The purpose is vague, as it lacks a clear verb and resource context 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after a patch operation), or related tools like 'dokploy_patch_delete' or 'dokploy_patch_cleanPatchRepos'. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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