Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (safe), idempotentHint=true (repeatable), and openWorldHint=true (flexible). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. It doesn't explain what 'updateResend' actually does behaviorally, what gets updated, what 'resend' means, or any side effects. 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?

The description is technically concise (just the tool signature and parameter list), but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The parameter list formatting is structured but adds no value beyond what's already in the schema. It wastes space repeating schema information without adding explanation.

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 mutation tool with 14 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and complex sibling context (many notification_* tools), this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameters mean, or what to expect as output. The annotations help with safety profile, but the functional understanding is missing.

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 only type information without descriptions. The description lists parameter names but adds zero semantic meaning - it doesn't explain what 'appBuildError', 'databaseBackup', 'notificationId', 'resendId', or any other parameters actually represent or how they affect the operation. For 14 parameters with no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

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 with minimal context. It mentions 'notification.updateResend (POST)' which repeats the name and adds the HTTP method, but doesn't explain what the tool actually does - what 'updateResend' means in practical terms, what notifications are being updated/resent, or what outcome to expect.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or sibling tools that might be relevant (like other notification_* tools). It provides zero decision-making help for an agent.

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