Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear hints: destructiveHint=true indicates deletion, readOnlyHint=false confirms it's a mutation, idempotentHint=false suggests non-idempotent behavior, and openWorldHint=true implies flexible input. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations (e.g., what 'rollback' refers to, consequences of deletion, error handling). However, it does not contradict the 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 brief and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it includes redundant formatting (brackets, parentheses) and lacks structured explanation. While not verbose, it under-specifies key details, making it less effective than a more informative concise description would be.

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), single parameter with 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose, usage, or parameter semantics sufficiently for safe and correct invocation. The annotations help but don't fully compensate for the missing contextual details in the description.

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 lists 'rollbackId' as a required string parameter but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what a rollback ID is, where to find it, format examples). 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 restates the tool name and title ('[rollback] rollback.delete') without adding meaningful clarification. It mentions 'POST' and lists a parameter, but fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., delete a rollback record, remove a rollback capability). This is a tautology that provides minimal insight beyond the name/title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_rollback_rollback' from the list) that might be relevant. It lacks any usage instructions or exclusions, leaving the agent with no direction.

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