MCPDactyl

Get a backup

backup_get

Retrieve details for a specific Pterodactyl server backup, including its status and metadata. Use it to inspect one backup by server and backup ID or name.

Instructions

Get details for one backup.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "server": "<server>",
      "backup": "<backup>"
    },
    "name": "backup_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`panel`	No	Name of a saved panel. Omit to use the active or default panel.
`backup`	Yes
`server`	Yes
`baseUrl`	No	Inline panel URL override, e.g. https://panel.example.com. Not persisted.
`clientKey`	No	Inline client API key (ptlc_…) override. Not persisted.
`applicationKey`	No	Inline application API key (ptla_…) override. Not persisted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only fetch but says nothing about behavior if the backup or server does not exist, permission requirements, or what fields 'details' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no waste, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what a 'details' response contains and how the panel/override parameters interact. It does neither, leaving an agent to guess at the result shape and auth override behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 6 parameters and only 67% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The two required parameters, 'server' and 'backup', are undocumented in both schema and description, so the agent gets no help on their expected format.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The verb 'get' and resource 'backup' plus 'one backup' distinguish it slightly from backup_list, but the description never names that sibling or specifies what 'details' means. It is a minimal but readable statement of purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no explicit contrast with backup_list (which retrieves many) or backup_restore/backup_download_url (which act on a backup). The agent must infer everything from the name.

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

Deploy Server