Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (implying data deletion) and readOnlyHint=false (a write operation), which the description's 'remove' action aligns with. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it doesn't specify what 'remove' entails (e.g., permanent deletion, revoking access, side effects), authentication requirements, or rate limits. With annotations covering basic safety, it earns a baseline score but lacks enrichment.

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 under-specified rather than concise—it includes redundant information like '[user] user.remove (POST)' and a bare parameter list without explanatory context. It's front-loaded with the tool name but wastes space on formatting instead of providing value. A single sentence like 'Removes a user by their ID' would be more effective.

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 (annotations show destructiveHint=true), no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like what happens post-removal (e.g., confirmation message, error handling), the impact on associated resources, or user feedback. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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%, meaning the parameter 'userId' is undocumented in the schema. The description only lists 'userId' as a required parameter without adding any meaning—it doesn't explain what a userId is, its format (e.g., numeric ID, email), or where to find it. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 removes a user, which is a specific verb+resource combination ('remove' + 'user'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_user_deleteApiKey' or 'dokploy_user_update', which also operate on users but perform different actions. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 (e.g., user must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove yourself), or related tools (e.g., 'dokploy_user_update' for modifying users instead). This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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