Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide critical behavioral hints (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: false, openWorldHint: true). The description doesn't contradict these, but it adds minimal value beyond them—only the HTTP method (POST). It doesn't explain what 'destructive' means here (e.g., whether removal is permanent, affects authentication, or has side effects), leaving some behavioral context uncovered.

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 effectively structured. It includes extraneous details like '[sso]' and '(POST)' that don't add clarity, while missing essential explanatory content. It's concise but under-specified, failing to use its limited space to convey purpose or usage.

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 a destructive tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what the tool does, when to use it, parameter semantics, or expected outcomes. Annotations help, but the description doesn't fill gaps in understanding the operation's impact or context within the SSO system.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only lists the parameter name ('origin') with type and requirement, repeating schema info without adding meaning. It doesn't explain what an 'origin' is (e.g., a URL, domain, or identifier), its format, or examples, leaving the parameter poorly understood despite the schema's structural details.

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 ('sso.removeTrustedOrigin') and adds minimal context ('[sso]' prefix and 'POST' method), but it doesn't clearly articulate what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what a 'trusted origin' is in this context, what effect removal has, or what resource is being modified. This is borderline tautological with the name.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dokploy_sso_addTrustedOrigin' or 'dokploy_sso_getTrustedOrigins', nor does it indicate prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this operation is appropriate versus other SSO management tools.

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