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 doesn't contradict these annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond what's already in structured data. It mentions 'POST' which aligns with mutation, but doesn't explain what 'update' entails, whether it merges or replaces settings, or what happens to unspecified parameters. With annotations covering the core behavioral traits, the description adds limited additional 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?

The description is technically concise - just a header and parameter list - but this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified. While it doesn't waste words, it also doesn't provide the essential explanatory content needed for a tool with 14 parameters. The structure (header then parameter list) is logical but incomplete, as it lacks any explanatory prose about the tool's purpose or usage.

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, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and complex sibling relationships (multiple notification update tools), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful update, what the response might contain, how this tool relates to other notification tools, or the semantics of the numerous boolean parameters. The annotations help somewhat, but the description fails to provide the contextual completeness needed for effective 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 14 parameters (12 optional, 2 required), the description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining their meaning or relationships. The boolean parameters (appBuildError, databaseBackup, etc.) aren't explained as event triggers or notification settings. Required parameters notificationId and telegramId lack context about what they reference. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.

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 - it restates the tool name 'notification.updateTelegram' with minimal additional context. While it mentions 'POST' and lists parameters, it doesn't clearly articulate what the tool actually does (e.g., 'update Telegram notification settings for specific event types in Dokploy'). The description fails to provide a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes this tool from its siblings like dokploy_notification_updateDiscord or dokploy_notification_updateEmail.

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's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool should be selected over other notification update tools, or what context would trigger its use. The agent receives no usage context beyond the parameter list.

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