Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide basic hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds almost no behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'testing' entails - whether it sends actual notifications, validates configuration, returns diagnostic information, or has side effects. For a tool with annotations indicating it's a mutation (readOnlyHint: false) but not destructive, the description should clarify what changes or effects occur, but it provides minimal value beyond annotations.

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 structured with a parameter list, which is efficient. However, the first line '[notification] notification.testPushoverConnection (POST)' is redundant with the name/title and adds little value. The parameter listing is helpful but lacks explanations. While concise, it borders on under-specified rather than optimally informative.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only provide basic hints, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, when to use it, what the parameters mean, what behavior to expect, or what the output might be. For a testing/mutation tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate 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%, meaning parameter descriptions are entirely absent from the schema. The description lists parameter names and types but provides no semantic meaning - it doesn't explain what userKey, apiToken, priority, retry, or expire represent in the context of Pushover testing. Without this context, the agent cannot understand what values to provide or their significance, making parameter selection challenging.

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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal context. It mentions 'notification.testPushoverConnection (POST)' which echoes the name and adds HTTP method, but doesn't explain what 'testPushoverConnection' actually does - whether it sends a test notification, validates credentials, or performs some other verification. The description fails to specify the action's outcome or purpose beyond the literal name.

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 usage guidelines provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (like other notification test tools such as dokploy_notification_testDiscordConnection or dokploy_notification_testSlackConnection), what prerequisites exist, or what context triggers its use. The agent receives zero guidance on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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