Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and openWorldHint=true (accepts unknown parameters). The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond what's already in annotations. The '(POST)' notation implies an HTTP POST method, which aligns with the mutation annotation, but no additional behavioral details (like what happens when parameters are omitted, how the update affects existing settings, or response format) are provided.

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 structured as a parameter list, which is somewhat organized but not front-loaded with purpose. It wastes space by repeating '[notification] notification.updateSlack (POST)' which adds little value. The parameter listing is comprehensive but could be more concise if integrated with meaningful context. While not verbose, it lacks efficiency in conveying essential information.

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 (13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema) and annotations that cover basic behavioral traits, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'Slack notification' is in this context, what gets updated, how the parameters interact, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with many undocumented parameters, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 none of the 13 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description lists all parameters with their types and required status, but provides no semantic meaning beyond what's already evident from the parameter names. For example, it doesn't explain what 'appBuildError' controls, what 'serverThreshold' means, or how 'webhookUrl' relates to Slack notifications. With 0% schema coverage and 13 parameters, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 states '[notification] notification.updateSlack (POST)' which repeats the name and adds the HTTP method, but doesn't explain what 'updateSlack' actually does. The description lacks a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes this from sibling notification tools like 'dokploy_notification_createSlack' or 'dokploy_notification_testSlackConnection'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling notification tools (createSlack, updateSlack, testSlackConnection, plus other notification types), but the description offers no context about when this update operation is appropriate versus creating a new notification or testing an existing one. No prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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