Dokploy MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the description's burden is lower. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (e.g., no information about rate limits, authentication needs, or return format). However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, and the HTTP method 'GET' aligns with read-only behavior, so it meets the baseline for annotated tools.

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 the description is brief, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The single bracketed phrase '[notification] notification.getEmailProviders (GET)' fails to convey meaningful information and wastes space on redundant elements. A truly concise description would use its limited length to state the tool's purpose clearly, which this does not achieve.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, comprehensive annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks any explanation of what 'EmailProviders' are, what the return data might look like (no output schema exists), or how this tool relates to other notification tools. While annotations cover safety aspects, the description fails to provide the minimal context needed for an agent to understand when and why to invoke this tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for and no schema gaps to fill.

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 '[notification] notification.getEmailProviders (GET)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and HTTP method. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve available email notification providers, list configured email services) or what resource it operates on. While 'GET' implies retrieval, the purpose remains vague without stating what 'EmailProviders' refers to in this context.

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 multiple notification-related tools (e.g., dokploy_notification_createEmail, dokploy_notification_testEmailConnection), there's no indication of how this tool fits into the workflow or what prerequisites might be needed. The agent receives no usage context whatsoever.

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