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 does not contradict these annotations (it doesn't claim read-only or idempotent behavior). However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no explanation of what 'create' entails (e.g., whether it persists a configuration, sends a test message, requires specific permissions), rate limits, or error conditions. With annotations covering basic hints, the description meets a minimal baseline but adds no extra value.

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 concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on a redundant header and a bare parameter list that adds no semantic value. A truly concise description would replace the parameter list with meaningful explanation of the tool's purpose and usage, making every sentence earn its place—which this does not do.

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 (11 required parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameters mean, or what to expect upon success/failure. For a creation tool with many boolean flags and authentication parameters, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining what they mean (e.g., what 'appBuildError' controls, what 'botToken' is for, what 'messageThreadId' does). This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters entirely unexplained.

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 information. It states '[notification] notification.createTelegram (POST)' which merely repeats the name and adds the HTTP method, but provides no meaningful explanation of what the tool actually does (e.g., creating a Telegram notification configuration for specific events in Dokploy). It fails to distinguish this tool from its many sibling notification tools (e.g., createDiscord, createEmail).

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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools like dokploy_notification_createDiscord or dokploy_notification_createEmail. An agent would have no idea when this specific Telegram notification tool is appropriate.

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