Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that it's a POST request for testing, implying it may send data to the webhook, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like expected response format, error conditions, or rate limits, leaving gaps beyond the 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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, but includes redundant formatting (brackets and parentheses) that doesn't add value. It efficiently states the action and parameter, though it could be more polished.

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 no output schema and annotations only cover basic hints, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a successful test entails (e.g., returns a status message), error handling, or how it integrates with other notification tools, making it inadequate for informed use.

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%, and the description only lists the parameter name and type without adding meaning. It doesn't explain what the webhookUrl should be (e.g., a Microsoft Teams webhook URL format), its purpose in the test, or validation rules, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states the tool tests a Teams connection for notifications, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like other testConnection tools (e.g., testDiscordConnection, testSlackConnection) beyond the Teams-specific mention, leaving the purpose somewhat vague in comparison.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether a Teams notification must be configured first, or when testing is needed (e.g., after setup or troubleshooting).

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