Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only operation with open-world semantics. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, and it adds value by specifying the HTTP method (POST), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't provide additional context like authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens to associated data, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 not optimally structured. It front-loads the action ('sso.deleteProvider') and includes the HTTP method, which is useful. However, the parameter listing is redundant with the schema and adds no value. The description could be more concise by omitting the parameter line or integrating it meaningfully.

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), single parameter with 0% schema coverage, and lack of output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the parameter's purpose, potential side effects, or what to expect upon success/failure. For a deletion tool with high stakes, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'providerId' has no documentation in the schema. The description only repeats the parameter name without adding any semantic meaning (e.g., what a providerId is, format examples, or where to find it). For a single required parameter with zero schema coverage, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent guessing.

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 states the tool deletes an SSO provider ('sso.deleteProvider'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_sso_removeTrustedOrigin' or 'dokploy_sso_update', leaving the scope somewhat vague. The description is functional but lacks differentiation from related SSO operations.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing provider), exclusions, or related tools like 'dokploy_sso_listProviders' or 'dokploy_sso_update'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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