Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no information about permissions needed, whether data is permanently deleted, confirmation requirements, or error conditions. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 under-specified rather than concise—it wastes space on redundant information like '[postgres]' and '(POST)' while providing minimal useful content. The structure is poor with a parameter list that adds no value beyond the schema. It lacks front-loaded, actionable information and includes unnecessary formatting that doesn't aid understanding.

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?

For a destructive tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the consequences of removal, what 'postgresId' refers to, or what the tool returns. Annotations cover safety aspects, but the description fails to provide necessary operational context, making it incomplete for safe and correct 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%, meaning the parameter 'postgresId' is undocumented in the schema. The description only repeats the parameter name without explaining what it represents (e.g., a database ID, name, or UUID), where to find it, or format requirements. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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 a PostgreSQL instance, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_postgres_delete' or 'dokploy_postgres_remove' (if both existed), and the title/name repetition adds minimal value. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'remove' entails compared to similar operations.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when removal is appropriate, or what happens after removal. With many sibling tools for PostgreSQL management (create, deploy, update, etc.), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific destructive operation over others.

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