Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), indicating it's a non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates) or any side effects. However, it does not 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?

The description is poorly structured, starting with redundant name/HTTP method and then dumping a parameter list without explanation. It is under-specified rather than concise, wasting space on unhelpful repetition instead of providing meaningful content.

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 12 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is incomplete. It lacks purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and behavioral details, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with many parameters.

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 details. The description lists parameter names and types but adds no semantic meaning (e.g., what 'appBuildError' controls or how 'webhookUrl' is used). This fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 restates the tool name and title with '[notification] notification.updateLark (POST)' and lists parameters, failing to articulate what the tool actually does. It does not specify the action (e.g., update settings for a Lark notification) or the resource involved, making it tautological and unclear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other notification update tools (e.g., updateDiscord, updateEmail) or createLark. The description lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, 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.