Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: false, openWorldHint: true), which the description doesn't explicitly state. However, the description doesn't contradict these annotations—'remove' aligns with destructive behavior. It adds minimal context beyond annotations, such as the HTTP method (POST), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling.

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 signature ('[server] server.remove (POST)'), but it includes redundant parameter listing that adds little value. It could be more structured by integrating parameter details into a cohesive sentence, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover critical aspects like what 'remove' entails (e.g., deletion, deprovisioning), potential impacts, success/error responses, or dependencies. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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%, and the description only lists 'serverId' as a required string parameter without explaining what it represents (e.g., a server identifier, format, or where to find it). Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate by adding meaningful semantic context 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 removes a server ('server.remove'), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_server_delete' (which doesn't exist in the list) or other removal tools in the system, making it somewhat vague about its specific scope within the server management context.

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 sibling list includes many server-related tools (e.g., 'dokploy_server_create', 'dokploy_server_update'), but the description doesn't mention prerequisites, when removal is appropriate, or what happens to associated resources, leaving usage unclear.

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