Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'listBackupFiles' entails (e.g., pagination, format). Since annotations cover the safety profile adequately, the description meets the lower bar but adds minimal value, warranting a baseline score.

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 concise and structured with a clear header and parameter list, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be more front-loaded by starting with a purpose statement rather than the tool signature. Despite this minor structural issue, it efficiently conveys the available information without waste.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema) and annotations that only cover safety, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or any error conditions. For a list operation with undocumented parameters, this gap hinders the agent's ability to use the tool effectively, making the description insufficient for the 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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description lists parameters (destinationId, search, serverId) with types and required status, but provides no semantic meaning—e.g., what 'destinationId' refers to, how 'search' is used, or the role of 'serverId'. This partial information fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving key details unclear for effective tool invocation.

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 with minimal elaboration ('[backup] backup.listBackupFiles (GET)'), which is essentially tautological. It mentions 'listBackupFiles' but doesn't specify what constitutes a backup file or the scope of listing, making the purpose vague. While it implies listing files related to backups, it lacks specificity about the resource or context, failing to clearly distinguish from sibling backup tools like 'dokploy_backup_one' or 'dokploy_backup_remove'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools like 'dokploy_backup_one' for retrieving a single backup or 'dokploy_backup_remove' for deletion. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction on appropriate tool selection.

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