Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate the tool is non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions it's a POST request, implying a mutation that may send data, but doesn't detail effects like whether it sends a test message, logs results, or requires specific permissions. With annotations covering safety basics, the description provides some value but lacks rich behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, followed by a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the parameter list lacks explanatory text, making it somewhat sparse. Overall, it's efficiently structured but could be more informative without losing brevity.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, error messages), how 'decoration' affects the test, or the expected outcome of testing the connection. For a mutation tool with undocumented parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description lists parameters 'webhookUrl' and 'decoration' but doesn't explain their semantics—what a webhookUrl should be (e.g., Discord webhook URL format), what 'decoration' does (e.g., adds formatting to the test message), or examples. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters 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 the tool is for testing a Discord connection via a notification, which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'test' entails (e.g., sending a test message, validating webhook) and doesn't distinguish from sibling notification test tools like 'testEmailConnection' or 'testSlackConnection', leaving ambiguity about its specific function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing a configured Discord notification first), typical scenarios (e.g., after setting up a Discord notification), or comparisons to other test tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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