Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which fully cover safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations declare—it doesn't mention response format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present but adds minimal value.

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?

While the description is brief, it's under-specified rather than concise. The single bracketed phrase '[notification] notification.all (GET)' fails to convey useful information and wastes space on redundant details. It lacks a clear, front-loaded purpose statement, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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 zero parameters and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (no output schema exists), its scope (e.g., all notifications across the system or per user), or any side effects. For a read operation in a complex notification subsystem, the description should clarify the resource being accessed and the nature of the returned data, which it fails to do.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters to document, the description isn't expected to add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the schema adequately indicates no inputs are required.

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 '[notification] notification.all (GET)' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name and adds the HTTP method. It fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., list notifications, retrieve notification settings, fetch all notification channels). The description provides no meaningful verb-resource combination, making it impossible to distinguish from sibling notification tools like 'dokploy_notification_one' or 'dokploy_notification_createDiscord'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling notification tools available (create, update, remove, test connections), the agent receives zero direction on whether this tool is for listing, fetching, or managing notifications, or how it differs from other notification-related operations.

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