Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and is open-world. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it doesn't explain what 'testTelegramConnection' entails (e.g., sends a test message, validates connectivity, returns success/failure), nor does it mention authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds minimal value.

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 repeats the tool name and adds HTTP method without front-loading purpose. The parameter list is formatted but lacks explanatory value. While not verbose, it wastes space on redundant information rather than clarifying the tool's function.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use parameters, what to expect as output, or error conditions. For a testing tool with authentication parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it 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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists parameter names and types but adds no semantic meaning—it doesn't explain what 'botToken', 'chatId', or 'messageThreadId' are, their formats, or where to obtain them. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving parameters poorly understood.

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 name 'notification.testTelegramConnection' and HTTP method 'POST', but lacks a clear verb+resource statement explaining what it actually does. It doesn't specify whether this sends a test message, validates credentials, or performs another Telegram connection test. While it's in the notification context, the purpose remains vague beyond the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'dokploy_notification_createTelegram' and 'dokploy_notification_updateTelegram', but the description doesn't differentiate this testing tool from those creation/update tools or explain prerequisites like needing a configured Telegram notification first.

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