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 operation with openWorldHint=true. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context - only that it's a POST endpoint. It doesn't explain what 'receiveNotification' actually does behaviorally: does it trigger alerts, store data, forward to other systems? For a tool with 7 parameters, more behavioral explanation would be helpful.

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 but poorly structured. It front-loads with '[notification] notification.receiveNotification (POST)' which doesn't communicate purpose. The parameter listing is organized but lacks explanatory context. While not verbose, the description fails to use its limited space effectively to convey meaningful information beyond what's already in the schema.

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 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameters mean, what happens when called, or what to expect in response. For a notification-related POST operation in a complex system with many sibling tools, this leaves critical gaps for agent understanding.

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 carries full burden for explaining parameters. While it lists all 7 parameters with types and requirements, it provides zero semantic meaning. What does 'ServerType' represent? What units for 'Value' and 'Threshold'? What format for 'Timestamp'? What is the 'Token' used for? The parameter list is essentially a restatement of the schema without added value.

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.receiveNotification' without explaining what it does. It lists parameters but doesn't state the purpose - whether this sends a notification, processes incoming notifications, or logs them. Compared to sibling tools like 'dokploy_notification_createDiscord' or 'dokploy_notification_testEmailConnection', this tool's function is unclear from the description alone.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling notification tools (createCustom, createDiscord, createEmail, etc.), there's no indication whether this is for receiving system alerts, processing webhook payloads, or another purpose. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.

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