Dokploy MCP Server

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world update operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description doesn't add any information about authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what constitutes a successful update. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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?

While technically concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. The parameter listing is presented as raw data without meaningful organization or prioritization. The description fails to front-load the most critical information about the tool's purpose, making it inefficient for agent decision-making despite its brevity.

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?

For a complex update tool with 17 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool updates, what the expected response format is, what validation occurs, or how to interpret the various boolean flags. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

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?

With 17 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameter meanings. It merely lists parameter names and types without any explanation of what each parameter controls (e.g., what 'appBuildError' boolean toggles, what 'serverThreshold' monitors, what 'smtpServer' should contain). This leaves all 17 parameters semantically undefined despite the high parameter count.

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 ('notification.updateEmail') with a method annotation ('POST'). It provides no meaningful explanation of what the tool actually does - whether it updates email notification settings, modifies email templates, or changes SMTP configuration. The description fails to distinguish this tool from its many notification-related siblings in the list.

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?

The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like 'dokploy_notification_createEmail', 'dokploy_notification_updateCustom', 'dokploy_notification_updateDiscord', etc., there's no indication of when this specific email update tool should be selected over other notification update tools or when it's appropriate versus creating a new notification.

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