Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide basic hints (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), but the description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a POST request, implying it may send data or trigger an action. However, it doesn't disclose what the tool actually does (e.g., sends a test ping, validates connectivity, returns a status), rate limits, authentication needs, or expected outcomes. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds only limited value beyond them.

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 method, but it includes redundant information (the tool name in brackets) and lacks structure. It's concise but under-specified, with the parameter list adding little value. Every sentence doesn't fully earn its place due to the lack of substantive content.

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 one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that don't fully explain behavior, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the tool's purpose, usage, or what happens when invoked. For a notification testing tool, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how 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 the parameter 'webhookUrl' as a required string but provides no semantics—what the URL is for, format expectations, or example values. The description repeats what the schema already defines (parameter name and type) without adding meaning, failing to address the coverage gap.

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.testLarkConnection') and adds the HTTP method (POST), which is tautological. It mentions 'notification' but doesn't specify what the tool actually does—whether it sends a test notification, validates a webhook URL, or performs another action. The purpose is vague and lacks a clear verb+resource combination.

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 is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include other notification test tools (e.g., testDiscordConnection, testSlackConnection), the lack 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.