Skip to main content
Glama
Higangssh

homebutler

by Higangssh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

backup_create

Create Docker Compose backup archives for all services or a single service. Volumes are read live, so database writes may be inconsistent; verify restores separately.

Instructions

Create a Docker compose backup archive for all services or one service. Volumes are read while the containers run, so a database mid-write can land inconsistent; an archive is not evidence it restores, which is what backup_drill answers

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoCustom backup destination directory (optional)
serverNoRemote server name from config (optional, runs locally if omitted)
excludeNoHost paths not to archive, covering bind mounts at or under each one. What was excluded is written into the archive manifest, so a later restore can tell a mount that was left out from one that never existed (optional)
serviceNoSpecific service to back up (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.39.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / exclude
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Host paths not to archive, covering bind mounts at or under each one. What was excluded is written into the archive manifest, so a later restore can tell a mount that was left out from one that never existed (optional)",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Addedv0.18.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful operational trait: volumes are read while containers run, so mid-write database states can be inconsistent, and it warns that the archive alone is not proof of restore success. It omits return behavior and permission requirements, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first front-loads the action and scope, and the second adds the critical caveat and sibling pointer efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The main purpose, runtime caveat, and verification sibling are covered. However, with no output schema, the description does not say what the tool returns or where the archive is written by default, nor does it mention backup_restore for restoring archives. For a tool with four optional parameters and no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only slight support for the service parameter via 'all services or one service' and does not otherwise add semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Docker compose backup archive,' and states scope explicitly ('all services or one service'). It also distinguishes itself from backup_drill by noting that an archive is not evidence of restorability, which is what backup_drill answers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly indicates when to use this tool: to create a Docker compose backup. It also points to backup_drill as the alternative for verifying restorability. It does not explicitly mention backup_restore or state an exclusion condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools