Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide good coverage (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide - no information about what gets updated, how notifications work, what happens to existing settings, or any rate limits/permissions needed. The description neither contradicts nor meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 - it starts with redundant information '[notification] notification.updateTeams (POST)' and then provides a parameter list that belongs in the schema. The content is not front-loaded with purpose, and the parameter listing adds bulk without adding meaningful context. This is under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what the update operation entails, or how it relates to the broader notification system. While annotations provide some behavioral context, the description fails to provide the necessary semantic understanding for proper tool selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 12 parameters (10 optional, 2 required), the description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining their meaning or purpose. While it provides a structured list, it doesn't add semantic understanding - for example, what do 'appBuildError' or 'serverThreshold' actually control? The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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] notification.updateTeams (POST)' which indicates it's a notification-related update operation for Teams, but doesn't specify what is being updated or what the tool actually does. It fails to distinguish this from sibling notification tools like dokploy_notification_updateDiscord or dokploy_notification_updateSlack.

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 are no usage guidelines provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist, or what context would make this the appropriate choice. With many sibling notification tools available, this lack of guidance is particularly problematic.

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