Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—such as what exactly gets destroyed (e.g., Docker builder cache, artifacts), potential side effects, or permissions required. Since annotations cover safety traits, the bar is lower, but the description misses opportunities to clarify the destructive nature.

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 poorly structured—it's essentially a label with a parameter list. While not verbose, it lacks a clear, front-loaded explanation of the tool's purpose. The formatting as a code-like snippet doesn't aid readability, but it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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), no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or the scope of cleanup. For a destructive operation with potential system impact, more context is needed to guide safe usage.

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 lists 'serverId' as optional but provides no semantic meaning—what server it refers to, default behavior if omitted, or impact on the cleanup operation. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's purpose ambiguous.

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/title ('settings.cleanDockerBuilder') and adds only the HTTP method (POST), which is tautological. It doesn't explain what 'cleanDockerBuilder' means—whether it clears cache, removes temporary files, or deletes builder instances. The verb 'clean' is vague, and the resource 'DockerBuilder' is unclear without 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. Among siblings, there are other cleanup tools (e.g., dokploy_settings_cleanAll, dokploy_settings_cleanDockerPrune), but the description doesn't differentiate this one's specific purpose or prerequisites. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.

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