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, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. For a creation tool with no output schema, the description should explain what happens on success (e.g., returns a notification ID), what permissions are needed, or whether this triggers notifications immediately. Without annotations covering these aspects, the description carries the burden but provides nothing.

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 the first line repeating the tool name and HTTP method, then provides a bare parameter list without grouping or explanation. The structure doesn't front-load purpose or usage, making it inefficient for agent comprehension despite its 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?

For a complex creation tool with 11 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations covering behavioral details, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool creates, what the parameters mean, what happens on success/failure, or how it relates to the notification system. Given the rich sibling context and complete lack of structured documentation, 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 11 required parameters, the description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining their meaning. It doesn't clarify what 'appBuildError', 'databaseBackup', etc. represent (likely event triggers), what 'priority' values mean, what 'decoration' does, or how 'serverUrl' and 'appToken' relate to Gotify configuration. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('notification.createGotify') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify that this creates a Gotify notification configuration or what Gotify is, nor does it distinguish this from sibling notification tools like createDiscord or createSlack. The description fails to provide a clear verb+resource statement of purpose.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling notification tools (createDiscord, createEmail, createSlack, etc.), the description provides no context about when Gotify notifications are appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or how this differs from other notification methods. This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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