Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate the tool is non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and openWorld, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It doesn't explain what 'testResendConnection' entails—whether it sends a test notification, validates credentials, or performs another action. For a tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description fails to disclose critical behavior like expected outcomes or side effects.

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's under-specified rather than concise. The parameter list is included, but without explanations, it doesn't add meaningful content. While not verbose, the structure lacks effective communication, making it inefficient rather than optimally concise.

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 (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that don't fully explain behavior), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool does, how to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect in return. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 (apiKey, fromAddress, toAddresses) but provides no semantic meaning—e.g., what 'apiKey' is for, what 'fromAddress' and 'toAddresses' represent, or format requirements. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural information, failing to clarify parameter purposes or constraints.

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 HTTP method ('notification.testResendConnection (POST)') but provides minimal functional context. It mentions 'notification' and 'testResendConnection' but doesn't clarify what 'testResendConnection' means—whether it's testing a connection, resending a notification, or something else. This is tautological and vague, failing to distinguish from sibling notification tools like 'testEmailConnection' or 'testSlackConnection'.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a configured Resend notification provider, or when this tool is appropriate compared to other notification testing tools (e.g., 'testEmailConnection'). This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction.

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