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 adds minimal behavioral context beyond the parameter list. It doesn't explain what happens when the notification is created, whether it's immediately active, or any side effects.

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 technically concise but poorly structured. It front-loads redundant information (name + HTTP method) then dumps a parameter list. While brief, it fails to communicate essential information efficiently - every sentence should earn its place, and the parameter listing without explanation doesn't add sufficient value.

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 creation tool with 11 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations explaining behavior, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what gets created, how to use it, what the parameters mean, or what the expected outcome is. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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 (notification triggers?), what 'priority' values mean, or how 'serverUrl' and 'topic' relate to Ntfy configuration.

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 restates the tool name and HTTP method without explaining what the tool actually does. It lists parameters but doesn't state the purpose - creating an Ntfy notification configuration in Dokploy. This is essentially a tautology of the name/title with added parameter listing.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many other notification creation tools (createCustom, createDiscord, createEmail, etc.). The description provides no context about when Ntfy notifications are appropriate or what distinguishes this from sibling notification tools.

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