Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by implying removal. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (POST) and parameter requirement, though it doesn't detail side effects like whether removal is permanent or if there are confirmation steps. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it includes redundant formatting (brackets and parentheses) and lacks efficient structuring. While not verbose, it could be more polished and informative without adding unnecessary length.

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 destructive nature (annotations show destructiveHint=true), no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., success response, error handling) or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for a tool that performs a removal operation.

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 mentions notificationId as a required string but provides no semantic context (e.g., format, source, or examples). This leaves the parameter meaning unclear beyond its basic type, failing to add sufficient value over the schema.

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 the tool removes a notification with a required notificationId parameter, which clarifies the basic action. However, it doesn't specify what type of notification (e.g., system alert, user message) or distinguish it from sibling notification tools like dokploy_notification_all or dokploy_notification_one, making it somewhat vague.

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, such as when to remove versus update or create notifications. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing notification ID) or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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