Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation tool. The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal context beyond the name—it doesn't explain what 'remove' entails (e.g., permanent deletion, cascading effects, or confirmation steps). Given annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds some value by implying deletion but lacks behavioral details like error conditions or side effects.

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 includes redundant formatting (brackets, 'POST') and a parameter list that doesn't add value, wasting space that could be used for meaningful guidance. The structure is not front-loaded with critical information, making it inefficient.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., success confirmation, error messages), potential impacts, or recovery options. Given the high stakes of removal operations, 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 'projectId' as a required parameter without explaining what it is (e.g., a UUID, name, or how to obtain it). This adds little meaning beyond the schema's structural requirement, failing to clarify the parameter's purpose or format.

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 project ('project.remove'), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from other destructive sibling tools like 'dokploy_application_delete' or 'dokploy_compose_delete', leaving ambiguity about what exactly a 'project' is in this context compared to other deletable entities.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must be stopped first), what happens to associated resources, or when not to use it (e.g., if you need to archive instead). With many sibling deletion tools, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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