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 adds minimal behavioral context beyond the parameter list. It doesn't explain what 'create' entails (e.g., whether it triggers an immediate backup, schedules it, or requires specific permissions), leaving gaps despite the annotations covering basic safety.

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 structured as a parameter list without a clear introductory sentence explaining the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with '[backup] backup.create (POST)' but then devolves into a bare list, lacking efficient communication. The parameter enumeration is redundant with the schema and doesn't add value, making it verbose yet under-informative.

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?

Given the complexity (16 parameters, creation operation), lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, expected inputs, or outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly. The parameter list alone is insufficient for a tool of this nature.

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 16 parameters (5 required), the description lists parameters but provides no semantic explanation. It doesn't clarify what values are expected (e.g., format for 'schedule', meaning of 'prefix', how 'database' relates to 'databaseType'), failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions and leaving parameters largely ambiguous.

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 states 'backup.create (POST)' which indicates it creates backups, but it's vague about what exactly is being backed up. It mentions parameters like database, databaseType, and composeId, suggesting it can back up databases or compose services, but doesn't clearly articulate the tool's scope or differentiate it from sibling backup tools like manual backup tools for specific database types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists parameters but doesn't indicate prerequisites, when this scheduled backup creation is appropriate compared to manual backups, or how it relates to other backup tools in the sibling list (e.g., dokploy_backup_manualBackupPostgres).

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