Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates), authentication requirements, or rate limits. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 brief, the description is under-specified rather than concise. The first line is redundant, and the parameter list is a bare enumeration without explanatory context. It lacks a clear, front-loaded purpose statement, making it inefficient for quick understanding despite its short length.

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 (14 parameters, mutation operation), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool updates, the expected input format, or the result of the operation, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.

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 parameters are completely undocumented in the schema. The description only lists parameter names and types without explaining their purpose, relationships, or how they affect the update operation. For 14 parameters with no schema documentation, this minimal listing fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 merely repeats the tool name and HTTP method ('notification.updateGotify (POST)') without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated or what 'Gotify' refers to, making it a tautology that provides no meaningful purpose statement beyond the name itself.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling notification tools (createGotify, updateDiscord, updateEmail, etc.), the description fails to distinguish this tool's specific use case or context, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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