Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, which the description doesn't contradict. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond this—no mention of what 'testing' entails (e.g., sends a test email, returns success/failure), potential side effects (e.g., email sent to recipients), or error handling. With annotations covering basic traits, the description adds minimal value, scoring baseline for partial 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 brief but inefficiently structured—it front-loads redundant name/HTTP method info and lists parameters without explanation, wasting space. While not verbose, it lacks meaningful content, making it under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence (or line) doesn't earn its place with useful information.

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's complexity (6 required parameters, no output schema, annotations with mixed hints), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the testing behavior, expected outcomes, or error scenarios. Without output schema or rich parameter details, the agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively, especially for a non-idempotent operation involving sensitive data like passwords.

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 parameter names and types but adds no semantic meaning—it doesn't explain what 'smtpServer' should contain (e.g., hostname), 'toAddresses' format, or purpose of each field. This fails to compensate for the schema gap, 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 restates the tool name with minimal context ('[notification] notification.testEmailConnection (POST)'), which is essentially a tautology. It doesn't specify what 'testEmailConnection' actually does—whether it sends a test email, validates SMTP settings, or performs another action. While it hints at notification/email testing, the purpose remains vague and lacks a clear verb+resource statement.

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 sibling tools include other notification testing tools (e.g., testDiscordConnection, testSlackConnection), but the description doesn't differentiate this email-specific test from those or explain prerequisites like needing SMTP credentials. Usage context is entirely missing.

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