Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide critical behavioral hints: destructiveHint=true (confirms deletion), readOnlyHint=false (confirms mutation), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), and openWorldHint=true (may have side effects). The description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (POST), which isn't covered by annotations, and aligns with the destructive nature implied by 'delete'. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 but inefficiently structured. It includes redundant formatting like brackets and 'POST', and the parameter listing is minimal without added context. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded clarity and could be more streamlined to convey essential information without clutter.

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 (annotations indicate mutation and destruction) and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome of deletion, potential side effects, or error conditions. However, annotations partially fill gaps by hinting at behavior, and no output schema exists, so some context is missing but not critically so.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only lists 'scheduleId (string, required)' without explaining what a scheduleId is, its format, or where to obtain it. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'schedule.delete (POST)', indicating it deletes a schedule resource. It specifies the action (delete) and resource (schedule), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dokploy_schedule_update or dokploy_schedule_create beyond the 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing schedule), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like dokploy_schedule_list or dokploy_schedule_update, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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