Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide significant behavioral information: destructiveHint=true indicates this performs destructive operations, readOnlyHint=false confirms it's a mutation, idempotentHint=false suggests non-idempotent behavior, and openWorldHint=true implies it may affect external resources. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. However, it doesn't contradict annotations (e.g., it doesn't claim to be read-only while annotations say readOnlyHint=false), so it avoids a contradiction penalty. With annotations covering key traits, the bar is lower, but the description adds no value.

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 inefficiently structured. It includes redundant information like '[settings]' and '(POST)' that don't add clarity, while missing essential explanatory content. The parameter listing is presented but lacks meaningful context. While not verbose, it's under-specified rather than concise, with sentences that don't earn their place through useful information.

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 complexity (destructive operation with annotations), 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'clean' entails, what 'stopped containers' are, the impact of the operation, or expected outcomes. Annotations provide safety warnings, but the description doesn't supplement with practical context needed for an agent to use this tool effectively in a deployment environment.

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 description lists 'serverId (string, optional)' as a parameter, which matches the input schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description adds minimal semantics by naming the parameter but doesn't explain what 'serverId' represents, why it's optional, or what happens if omitted. For a single parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more substantially with contextual meaning.

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 ('settings.cleanStoppedContainers') and adds '(POST)' but doesn't explain what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what 'clean' means (e.g., delete, remove, prune) or what 'stopped containers' refers to. While it mentions 'settings', this is tautological with the name and doesn't provide a clear verb+resource action. Compared to siblings like 'dokploy_settings_cleanAll' or 'dokploy_settings_cleanUnusedImages', it doesn't distinguish its specific purpose.

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 considerations, or related tools. Given the many sibling tools with 'clean' in their names (e.g., 'dokploy_settings_cleanAll', 'dokploy_settings_cleanUnusedImages'), there's no indication of when this specific container-cleaning tool is appropriate versus other cleanup operations.

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