Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a POST request, implying creation, but doesn't elaborate on effects like what gets created, permissions needed, or response format. With annotations covering basic traits, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 concise but poorly structured. It front-loads minimal information and then lists parameters without integration into the purpose. While not verbose, the structure doesn't effectively communicate the tool's function, making it less helpful despite brevity.

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 has 10 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that don't fully explain behavior, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool creates, how it interacts with the system, expected outcomes, and differentiation from siblings. For a creation tool in a complex notification system, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 parameter details. The description lists parameters with types and optionality, adding basic semantics beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain what each parameter means (e.g., what 'appBuildError' triggers, what 'endpoint' is for), leaving significant gaps in understanding for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 only restates the tool name with minimal context ('[notification] notification.createCustom (POST)'), which is essentially tautological. It doesn't clearly state what the tool does beyond implying it creates something related to notifications. While it lists parameters, it doesn't articulate the core function or resource being created.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include many other notification creation tools (e.g., dokploy_notification_createDiscord, dokploy_notification_createEmail), the description fails to differentiate this custom notification tool from those, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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