Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=true (destructive), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), and openWorldHint=true (open-world). The description does not contradict these annotations. While it adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover, the annotations are comprehensive, so the description's minimal addition does not harm transparency. No contradiction is present.

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 concise with two lines, but it is not well-structured or front-loaded. The first line is cryptic ('[settings] settings.cleanUnusedVolumes (POST)'), and the second line merely lists a parameter without integration. While brief, it lacks clarity and could be more effectively organized to convey purpose upfront.

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 mutation with one parameter), the description is incomplete. Annotations cover safety aspects, but the description lacks purpose clarity, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics. With no output schema and low schema coverage, the description does not compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for informed tool selection and invocation.

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)' but provides no semantic explanation. With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter, the description fails to add meaningful context beyond the schema's type information. It does not explain what 'serverId' refers to, its format, or implications of being optional, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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.cleanUnusedVolumes (POST)' restates the tool name and title with minimal elaboration. It indicates a POST action on a settings-related endpoint but lacks a specific verb and resource definition. While it hints at cleaning unused volumes, the purpose is vague and does not clearly distinguish this tool from sibling settings tools like 'cleanAll', 'cleanUnusedImages', or 'cleanStoppedContainers'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools with similar 'clean' operations, the absence of usage guidelines is a significant gap, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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