Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations provide basic hints (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open world), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what's already in annotations. It doesn't explain what 'creates' means operationally, whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if a notification with the same name exists, or what the response looks like. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description adds minimal value but doesn't provide rich behavioral details.

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 technically concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It wastes space on a redundant header and a parameter list that adds no value beyond what's already in the schema. The structure doesn't front-load essential information about the tool's purpose, and the parameter list should have been omitted since it provides no additional context.

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?

This is a creation tool with 10 required parameters, no output schema, and annotations that only provide basic hints. The description is completely inadequate for this context - it doesn't explain what the tool creates, what the parameters mean, what the expected response is, or how this differs from other notification tools. For a complex creation operation, this description provides almost no useful information.

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 description lists parameter names and types but provides zero semantic meaning. With 10 required parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description fails completely to explain what each parameter means (e.g., what 'appBuildError' controls, what 'decoration' does, what format 'webhookUrl' expects). The agent would have to guess the purpose of each boolean flag and string field based solely on their names.

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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal context. It states '[notification] notification.createDiscord (POST)' which just repeats the name and adds the HTTP method, but doesn't explain what the tool actually does. The parameter list that follows doesn't constitute a purpose statement. A proper description would explain that this creates a Discord notification configuration in Dokploy.

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 are absolutely no usage guidelines provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus the many other notification creation tools (createEmail, createSlack, createTeams, etc.) listed among the siblings. It provides no context about prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what alternatives exist for different notification types.

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