Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear behavioral hints (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: false, openWorldHint: true). The description doesn't contradict these annotations and adds minimal context about being a POST operation. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral details like what happens after deletion, error conditions, or confirmation requirements.

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 extremely concise (two lines) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first line '[redirects] redirects.delete (POST)' is redundant with the tool name, and the parameter listing is minimal. While not verbose, it fails to provide essential context that would help an agent.

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 deletion tool with 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks information about what 'redirects' are in this system, what deletion entails, potential side effects, or how to identify the correct redirectId. With no output schema and minimal annotations beyond safety hints, more context is needed.

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 carries full burden for parameter documentation. It only lists 'redirectId (string, required)' without explaining what a redirectId is, how to obtain it, its format, or examples. This provides minimal value beyond what the bare schema already indicates.

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 'redirects.delete (POST)' which restates the tool name/action without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what resource is being deleted (redirect rules? URL redirects?) or what 'redirects' refers to in this system. While it includes 'POST' as the method, this is redundant with the tool name's 'delete' action.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'dokploy_redirects_create', 'dokploy_redirects_one', and 'dokploy_redirects_update', but the description doesn't explain how this deletion tool relates to them or when deletion is appropriate versus updating.

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