dokploy-mcp-server

dokploy_environment

Create, get, list, update, remove, or duplicate project environments using project or environment IDs to handle deployment lifecycle changes.

Instructions

Manage project environments. create: projectId+name. get: environmentId. list: projectId. update: environmentId+fields. remove: environmentId. duplicate: environmentId+name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "dokploy_environment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`action`	Yes
`projectId`	No
`description`	No
`environmentId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.4Jun 29, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedv1.7.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only lists parameters per action but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether remove is destructive, whether updates are partial, return values) or any safety/authorization concerns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, listing all actions and their parameters in a compact format. It is front-loaded with the general purpose. Minor improvement could be clearer formatting (e.g., bullets), but no unnecessary text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on update fields, the role of the description parameter, return values, error handling, and any behavioral constraints.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description maps each action to required parameters (e.g., create needs projectId+name), which adds meaning beyond the schema's property names alone. However, it does not specify constraints on parameters like name or what 'fields' includes for update, limiting completeness.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Manage project environments' and lists all supported actions (create, get, list, update, remove, duplicate) with required parameters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dokploy_project, which handles project-level operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for environment management through its name and listed actions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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