Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which already convey that this is a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world semantics. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as what gets destroyed, side effects, or rate limits. However, it does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar set by having annotations.

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 extremely brief ('[settings] settings.cleanAllDeploymentQueue (POST)'), but this brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It fails to convey essential information, making it ineffective despite its short length. Every sentence (or lack thereof) does not earn its place in aiding tool selection.

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 complexity implied by 'cleanAllDeploymentQueue' (likely a destructive operation on a deployment queue), the description is insufficient. Annotations provide some behavioral hints, but there is no output schema, and the description lacks details on what the tool does, its effects, or return values. For a destructive tool with no output schema, more context is needed to be complete.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the input schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description does not add any parameter information, which is acceptable given the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, as there is nothing to compensate for.

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 '[settings] settings.cleanAllDeploymentQueue (POST)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and HTTP method without explaining what the tool actually does. It mentions 'settings' and 'cleanAllDeploymentQueue' but doesn't specify the action (e.g., clearing, resetting, or removing items) or the resource (deployment queue) in a meaningful way. This provides minimal clarity beyond the name itself.

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 lacks context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'dokploy_application_cleanQueues' or 'dokploy_compose_cleanQueues'. Without any usage instructions, an AI agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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