mcp-duplicati

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_backup

Create a new backup job with specified source paths, destination URL, and optional encryption passphrase.

Instructions

Create a new Duplicati backup job. source_paths: comma-separated local paths to back up. destination_url: Duplicati backend URL (e.g., 'file:///mnt/backup', 's3://bucket/path'). passphrase: optional AES-256 encryption key.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "source_paths": "<source_paths>",
      "destination_url": "<destination_url>"
    },
    "name": "create_backup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`passphrase`	No
`source_paths`	Yes
`destination_url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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 burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the job is immediately active), required permissions, or return behavior. Minimal behavioral context beyond 'create'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences: one for purpose, one for parameter definitions. Every sentence is relevant and concise. No fluff, though formatting could be improved for readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral outcomes. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for source_paths (comma-separated local paths), destination_url (Duplicati backend URL with examples), and passphrase (optional AES-256 encryption key). However, the 'name' parameter is not explained, leaving a gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new Duplicati backup job') and identifies the resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like run_backup or list_backups, which reduces specificity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for creating backup jobs, but no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs. run or modify). Context is implied but not spelled out.

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