Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide critical hints: destructiveHint=true indicates permanent deletion, and readOnlyHint=false confirms it's a mutation. The description adds the HTTP method (POST), which is useful context not in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral details like authentication requirements, error conditions, or idempotency implications (idempotentHint=false), leaving gaps in understanding.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and method, but it wastes space by repeating the name in brackets and includes a redundant 'Parameters:' section that adds little value. It could be more efficiently structured without sacrificing clarity.

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 (destructiveHint=true), no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the outcome of deletion (e.g., success response, error handling), security implications, or dependencies, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no param documentation. The description lists 'apiKeyId' as a required string but adds no semantic meaning—it doesn't explain what an API key ID is, where to find it, or format expectations. This minimal info fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb ('delete') and resource ('ApiKey'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dokploy_user_createApiKey' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the user context beyond the tool name prefix, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing API key), exclusions, or comparisons to other user management tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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