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 adds minimal behavioral context - it mentions 'POST' which aligns with non-readOnly, but doesn't explain what 'testCustomConnection' actually does behaviorally (e.g., sends a test notification, validates connectivity, returns status). For a tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral insight about what the test entails and what results to expect.

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 clear parameter list, but it's overly terse. The first line '[notification] notification.testCustomConnection (POST)' is redundant with the tool name/title. The parameter listing is useful but lacks explanatory context. While concise, it borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only provide basic hints, the description is insufficiently complete. For a connection testing tool that likely sends requests to external endpoints, the description should explain what constitutes a successful test, what kind of response format to expect, error conditions, and authentication requirements. The current description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.

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. It lists 'endpoint (string, required)' and 'headers (object, optional)' but provides no semantic context about what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or usage examples. For a custom connection testing tool, the description should explain what kind of endpoint is expected (e.g., webhook URL, API endpoint) and what headers might be needed for authentication or content negotiation.

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.testCustomConnection (POST)' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, providing minimal additional context. It mentions 'testCustomConnection' but doesn't explain what this testing entails or what resource it operates on beyond the generic 'notification' prefix. Compared to sibling tools like dokploy_notification_testDiscordConnection, it doesn't clearly differentiate its specific purpose for custom connections.

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 prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. Given sibling tools like dokploy_notification_testDiscordConnection and dokploy_notification_testEmailConnection, there's no indication of how this custom connection testing differs from provider-specific testing tools.

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