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. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but also adds minimal behavioral context. The POST method hint suggests creation, but there's no information about what gets created, whether it's idempotent (contradicted by annotations saying it's not), what permissions are required, or what happens on success/failure. With annotations covering basic safety profile, the description adds little additional behavioral insight.

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 under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first line is redundant with the tool name, and the parameter list is essentially a reformatted version of the schema without added value. While it's not verbose, it fails to use its limited space effectively to convey meaningful information beyond what's already apparent from structured fields.

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 tool with 9 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic safety hints, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool creates, what the parameters mean, what the expected response looks like, or how this fits into the broader notification system. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide much more context than it does.

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 for 9 required parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameter meanings. While it lists parameter names and types, it provides no semantic explanation of what each boolean flag controls (e.g., what 'appBuildError' actually means in context) or what the 'name' and 'webhookUrl' parameters represent. The parameter list adds minimal value beyond what's already visible in the schema structure.

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 states '[notification] notification.createLark (POST)' which is essentially a tautology of the tool name and HTTP method. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does - whether it creates a Lark notification configuration, sends a notification to Lark, or something else. While it lists parameters, it doesn't articulate the core purpose beyond restating the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include dokploy_notification_createDiscord, dokploy_notification_createSlack, dokploy_notification_createTeams, etc., there's no indication of when to choose Lark over other notification platforms or what distinguishes this tool from other notification creation tools in the system.

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