Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide good behavioral information (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, whether it modifies existing Discord notification settings, what happens with partial updates, or any side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no value beyond structured data.

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 poorly structured - it starts with a redundant line that adds little value, then presents a parameter list without context. While it's not verbose, it's under-specified rather than concise. The information is presented as a raw parameter dump rather than a helpful description, making it difficult for an agent to understand the tool's purpose quickly.

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 complexity (13 parameters, 2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and the fact this is a mutation tool (update operation), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a Discord notification is in this system, what fields can be updated, what the expected response looks like, or how this tool fits into the notification system. The annotations help but don't compensate for the missing contextual information.

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 none of the 13 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description simply lists parameter names and types without explaining what they mean or how they're used. While it does enumerate all parameters, it provides no semantic meaning beyond basic type information. For a tool with 13 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this is inadequate compensation.

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 states '[notification] notification.updateDiscord (POST)' which just repeats the name and adds the HTTP method, but doesn't explain what the tool actually does. There's no clear verb+resource statement explaining what 'updateDiscord' means in this context.

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 absolutely no usage guidelines provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to sibling tools like dokploy_notification_createDiscord or dokploy_notification_updateEmail. The agent receives zero guidance on appropriate usage context.

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