Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide critical behavioral hints (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds minimal context by specifying it's a POST operation. It doesn't elaborate on what 'remove' entails (e.g., data deletion, resource cleanup) or potential side effects beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists, and the description adds some operational detail.

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 includes redundant formatting (brackets, parentheses) and a parameter list that doesn't add semantic clarity. It avoids verbosity but could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameters). Some waste exists in the presentation.

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 tool's destructive nature (per annotations), no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what happens post-removal (e.g., confirmation, error handling), dependencies, or impact on related resources. For a destructive operation with one parameter, 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 for undocumented parameters. It lists 'redisId' as a required string but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what constitutes a valid Redis ID, format examples, or where to find it). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definition, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 Redis resource, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_redis_delete' (which doesn't exist in the list) or other removal tools in the system. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., Redis must be stopped first), and no reference to sibling tools like 'dokploy_redis_changeStatus' or 'dokploy_redis_stop' that might be related. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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