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 doesn't add any behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't explain what 'test' entails (e.g., sends a notification, checks server response), potential side effects, or error handling. With annotations covering basic traits, the description adds minimal value.

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, but it's under-specified rather than concise. The parameter list is included but adds little value without explanations. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information efficiently, making it less helpful than a truly concise yet informative description.

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 (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema) and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is incomplete. It lacks purpose, usage guidelines, parameter meanings, and behavioral details. For a tool that likely involves network calls and notification testing, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 lists parameters (serverUrl, appToken, priority, decoration) but provides no semantics—no explanation of what they represent, acceptable values, or usage. For example, it doesn't clarify that 'priority' might be a Gotify priority level or that 'decoration' controls formatting. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 and title ('notification.testGotifyConnection') and lists parameters, but doesn't clearly state what the tool does. It lacks a specific verb explaining the action (e.g., 'test connectivity to a Gotify server' or 'send a test notification'). The purpose is implied but not explicitly defined, making it vague and tautological.

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?

There are no guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include other notification test tools (e.g., testDiscordConnection, testEmailConnection), the absence of differentiation is a significant gap.

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