Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which already convey that this is a non-idempotent, destructive write operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as it doesn't explain what 'cleanMonitoring' entails (e.g., whether it deletes logs, resets metrics, or removes monitoring configurations). However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it avoids a lower score.

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.cleanMonitoring (POST)'), but this brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It fails to convey essential information about the tool's purpose or usage, making it ineffective despite its short length. It's not front-loaded with useful details, just a restatement of metadata.

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 show destructiveHint=true) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'cleanMonitoring' does, what data is affected, or what the expected outcome is. For a destructive operation with no output schema, more context is needed to guide safe usage, but the description provides almost none.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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.cleanMonitoring (POST)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and title with minimal added context. It mentions 'cleanMonitoring' but doesn't specify what this operation actually does (e.g., what data is cleaned, what monitoring is affected). While it hints at a settings-related cleanup, it lacks a clear verb-resource-action statement that distinguishes it from siblings like 'dokploy_settings_cleanAll' or 'dokploy_settings_cleanRedis'.

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, timing, or compare it to sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_settings_cleanAll' or 'dokploy_settings_cleanRedis'), leaving the agent with no context for selection. This omission is critical given the many cleanup-related tools in the sibling list.

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