Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent update operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true). The description doesn't contradict these, but it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields during an update. With annotations covering safety, a baseline 3 is appropriate, though more detail would improve utility.

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 concise but poorly structured. It front-loads the tool name and HTTP method, followed by a bare parameter list. While not verbose, the parameter list lacks explanatory value and could be better organized (e.g., grouping related parameters). It avoids redundancy but misses opportunities for clarity, making it adequate but not helpful.

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 (16 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema) and annotations that only cover basic safety, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's role in the notification system, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes. For an update tool with many optional flags, more context is needed to guide effective use, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 no parameters are documented in the schema. The description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining their purpose, relationships, or constraints (e.g., what 'priority' values mean, what 'retry' and 'expire' control, or how boolean flags like 'appBuildError' affect notifications). For 16 parameters with zero schema coverage, this minimal listing is insufficient to compensate.

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.updatePushover') with minimal additional context. It lacks a clear verb-resource-action statement explaining what the tool actually does (e.g., 'Update a Pushover notification configuration in Dokploy'). While it mentions 'notification' and 'updatePushover', it doesn't articulate the purpose beyond what's implied by the name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'dokploy_notification_createPushover' and other notification update tools (e.g., for Discord, Email), there's no indication of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from creating a new notification. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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