Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, confirming this is a destructive write operation. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (POST), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., impact on associated services), permissions, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 under-specified—it wastes space on redundant formatting (brackets, parentheses) and a parameter list that repeats schema info without adding context. It's front-loaded with the tool name but lacks efficiency; every sentence doesn't earn its place due to missing explanatory value.

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 (annotations hint at this), single parameter with 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the resource ('port'), the deletion's consequences, or expected outcomes. For a destructive tool, more context is needed to ensure safe usage.

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 only lists 'portId' as a required string without explaining what a portId is, its format, or where to obtain it. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type and requirement, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 ('port.delete') without explaining what a 'port' is in this context or what deletion entails. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) and lists the parameter, but doesn't clarify the action's purpose beyond the tautological 'delete'. Compared to siblings like 'dokploy_port_create' and 'dokploy_port_update', it doesn't differentiate the specific resource or scope.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing port), exclusions, or related tools like 'dokploy_port_one' (likely for viewing) or 'dokploy_port_create'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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