Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by implying deletion. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it doesn't specify consequences (e.g., irreversible removal), permissions required, or error handling. With annotations covering safety, it meets a baseline but lacks depth.

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, avoiding unnecessary fluff. However, the formatting with brackets and 'Parameters:' is slightly cluttered, and it could be more polished without sacrificing clarity.

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 destructive nature (annotations hint at this), no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens post-deletion, potential side effects, or return values, leaving gaps for a mutation tool in a complex system with many siblings.

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 the securityId parameter but provides no semantic details—what a securityId is, how to obtain it, or format examples. This leaves the parameter poorly explained, failing to add meaningful value beyond the bare schema.

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 deletes a security entity ('security.delete') and mentions the required securityId parameter, which clarifies the verb and resource. However, it doesn't specify what type of security entity (e.g., user, role, policy) or distinguish it from other delete operations like dokploy_ai_delete or dokploy_application_delete, making it somewhat vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing to identify a security entity first, or references to sibling tools like dokploy_security_create or dokploy_security_update for related operations.

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