Dokploy MCP Server

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

The description provides no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already declare (non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world). It does not add context about what gets updated, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. However, it does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present but 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?

While the description is brief, it is under-specified rather than concise. The first line is redundant (restating name and POST method), and the parameter list is a raw dump without organization or meaningful context. It lacks front-loaded purpose and wastes space on obvious information without adding value.

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), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks purpose, usage guidelines, parameter meanings, and behavioral context. With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description fails to provide the necessary information for an agent to understand or correctly invoke this tool.

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?

The description only lists parameter names and types without any semantic explanation. With schema description coverage at 0% and 14 parameters (2 required), the description fails to compensate by explaining what each parameter means (e.g., what 'appBuildError' controls, what 'priority' values are valid, what 'ntfyId' refers to). This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 a tautology that merely restates the tool name and HTTP method. It provides no information about what the tool actually does (e.g., updating an Ntfy notification configuration in Dokploy). The description fails to specify the verb (update) and resource (Ntfy notification) clearly, making it impossible to understand the tool's purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include multiple notification-related tools (e.g., dokploy_notification_createNtfy, dokploy_notification_updateCustom, dokploy_notification_one), there is no indication of when this specific update tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other notification tools.

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