Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying '(GET)', which aligns with read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the notificationId doesn't exist. There's no contradiction with annotations, but the description adds little value beyond what annotations already convey.

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 brief and structured with a header and parameter list, but it's under-specified rather than concise. The first line '[notification] notification.one (GET)' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and the parameter listing is minimal. While not verbose, it lacks essential information that would make it truly helpful, making it feel incomplete rather than efficiently written.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that cover safety but not operational details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., notification details), error conditions, or how it fits into the broader notification system. For a read operation with a required ID, more context is needed to guide effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'notificationId (string, required)' under 'Parameters:', which adds basic semantics (it's a required string parameter named notificationId). However, it doesn't explain what a notificationId is, its format, where to obtain it, or any constraints beyond the schema's minLength=1. This is insufficient for a tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving the parameter poorly understood.

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 states '[notification] notification.one (GET)' which partially indicates it's a GET operation on a notification resource, but it's vague and tautological - it essentially restates the name/title 'dokploy_notification_one' without specifying what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve, fetch, or view a specific notification). It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling notification tools like 'dokploy_notification_all' or 'dokploy_notification_createCustom'.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate it from other notification-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., when to use this versus 'dokploy_notification_all' for listing all notifications). The parameter list implies it requires a notificationId, but no usage context is given.

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