dokploy-mcp-server

dokploy_infrastructure

Manage application infrastructure by creating and deleting ports, adding or removing authentication credentials, and listing, retrieving, creating, or removing SSL certificates for your Dokploy resources.

Instructions

Manage ports, auth, certs. createPort: applicationId+publishedPort+targetPort. deletePort: portId. createAuth: applicationId+username+password. deleteAuth: securityId. listCerts: all. getCert: certificateId. createCert: name+certificateData+privateKey. removeCert: certificateId.

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_infrastructure"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`action`	Yes
`portId`	No
`password`	No
`protocol`	No
`serverId`	No
`username`	No
`autoRenew`	No
`privateKey`	No	PEM format
`securityId`	No
`targetPort`	No
`publishMode`	No
`applicationId`	No
`certificateId`	No
`publishedPort`	No
`certificateData`	No	PEM format

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or reversibility. It only lists actions and parameters, providing minimal insight into the tool's behavior beyond the obvious mutation implied by action names.

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, using a single sentence to state purpose and then a compact list of actions with parameters. It front-loads the general purpose, making it efficient, though the dense format might be slightly harder to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a multi-action tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers input requirements per action but omits output specifics, error handling, prerequisites, or contextual usage scenarios.

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?

Schema coverage is low (13%), but the description compensates by explicitly mapping each action to its required parameters (e.g., createPort needs applicationId, publishedPort, targetPort). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, though some parameters remain unexplained.

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 the tool manages ports, auth, and certs, and lists specific actions with their required parameters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle other aspects like applications, backups, or domains.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer based on action names alone.

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