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. The POST method hint suggests creation, but there's no information about what gets created (notification configuration?), whether this requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. With annotations covering basic safety, 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 technically concise (just parameter listing), but this conciseness comes at the cost of usefulness. The structure is poor - it starts with a redundant name restatement, then dumps a parameter list without context. While not verbose, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, when to use it, what the parameters mean, what gets created, or what the response contains. The annotations provide basic safety information, but the description fails to address the complexity of configuring a multi-parameter notification channel.

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%, meaning none of the 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining what they mean. For example, what does 'appBuildError' control? When should 'serverThreshold' be true? What format should 'webhookUrl' follow? 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 restates the tool name ('notification.createTeams') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what kind of notification is being created, for what purpose, or what 'Teams' refers to (Microsoft Teams integration? Team notifications?). This is essentially a tautology that adds little beyond 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?

There is absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list includes many other notification creation tools (createDiscord, createEmail, createSlack, etc.), but the description provides no context about when Teams notifications are appropriate or how this differs from other notification channels.

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