Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but it also adds no behavioral context beyond what's already in the structured data. No information about authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what 'sending' actually entails is 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 brief but inefficiently structured. It wastes space repeating the tool name and HTTP method without adding value. While concise, it fails to front-load essential information about the tool's purpose, making it less helpful than it could be for the same word count.

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 (non-readOnly) with 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, what the parameters mean, what happens when invoked, or what to expect in return. The annotations provide basic safety hints but don't compensate for the missing operational context.

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 the schema provides no descriptions for the two required parameters. The description simply lists parameter names without explaining what 'invitationId' and 'notificationId' represent, where to get them, or how they relate to the invitation sending process. This leaves critical parameter meaning undocumented.

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 restates the tool name and title ('user.sendInvitation') without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being acted upon (e.g., sending an invitation to join something) or what the expected outcome is. This is essentially a tautology that provides no additional clarity beyond 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. There are sibling tools like 'dokploy_organization_inviteMember' and 'dokploy_organization_allInvitations' that appear related to invitations, but the description doesn't differentiate this tool from those or provide any context about appropriate usage scenarios.

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