Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't explain what 'createEmail' entails—e.g., whether it saves a notification configuration, sends a test email, or requires specific permissions. While not contradicting annotations, it fails to supplement them meaningfully for a creation tool.

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 brief but inefficiently structured—it leads with redundant information (name and HTTP method) and buries the parameter list without context. While not verbose, it wastes space on repetition instead of providing actionable insights, making it under-specified rather than truly concise.

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 complexity (14 required parameters, no output schema, and annotations only covering basic hints), the description is highly incomplete. It lacks purpose, usage guidelines, parameter explanations, and behavioral details needed for effective tool invocation. For a creation tool with many parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 description must compensate, but it only lists parameter names and types without explaining their meanings. For example, it doesn't clarify what 'appBuildError' or 'serverThreshold' booleans control, or how 'toAddresses' should be formatted. This leaves 14 required parameters largely unexplained, adding minimal value beyond the schema.

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 and HTTP method ('notification.createEmail (POST)'), which is tautological. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does—like creating an email notification configuration or setting up email alerts for specific events. The list of parameters hints at functionality but doesn't constitute a clear purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include other notification creation methods (e.g., createDiscord, createSlack), but the description doesn't differentiate email notifications from these or indicate prerequisites like needing SMTP credentials. Usage is implied only through parameter names, not explicit instructions.

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