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 this. It doesn't explain what 'create' entails (e.g., whether it sends a test notification, stores configuration, or requires specific permissions), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's effects. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so no contradiction is flagged.

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 overly minimal. It front-loads the tool name and method, followed by a parameter list, but the parameter list is redundant with the schema and adds no value. While not verbose, it lacks essential explanatory content, making it inefficient in conveying useful information.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is highly incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose in detail, provide usage context, clarify parameter meanings, or describe expected outcomes. With annotations covering basic hints but no rich behavioral details, the description fails to compensate for the gaps, making it inadequate for effective tool use.

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 parameters with types but provides no semantic meaning. With 0% schema description coverage and 10 required parameters, the description fails to explain what each boolean parameter controls (e.g., what 'appBuildError' or 'serverThreshold' mean in context) or how 'webhookUrl' and 'channel' should be formatted. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 additional context. It mentions '[notification] notification.createSlack (POST)' which indicates it creates a Slack notification, but this is already obvious from the name. It doesn't specify what kind of Slack notification or what triggers it, making the purpose vague rather than specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list includes other notification creation tools (e.g., createDiscord, createEmail), but the description provides no comparison or context for choosing Slack over other notification methods. This leaves the agent without any usage direction.

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