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. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (e.g., no mention of what 'testing connection' entails, expected outcomes, or side effects). However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 includes redundant information (tool name and HTTP method) and a parameter list that doesn't add explanatory value. While not verbose, it fails to front-load essential purpose, making it less helpful than a more informative single sentence would be.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that don't explain the tool's function, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: what the tool does, expected results, error conditions, or how parameters relate to Ntfy notification testing. This is inadequate for a connection-testing tool.

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 parameter names and types but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what 'serverUrl', 'topic', 'accessToken', or 'priority' represent in Ntfy context). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural information.

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 ('notification.testNtfyConnection') and HTTP method ('POST') but doesn't specify what the tool actually does. It lists parameters but doesn't explain the action (e.g., 'tests connection to an Ntfy notification service'). This is tautological rather than clarifying purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools include other notification test tools (e.g., testDiscordConnection, testEmailConnection), the description doesn't mention Ntfy-specific context or differentiate from them. Usage is implied only by the parameter list.

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