Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that it's a POST request, which aligns with the annotations (non-read-only). However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as what 'manual' implies (e.g., user-triggered vs automated), potential side effects (e.g., system load during backup), or error conditions. The description doesn't contradict annotations but adds minimal context beyond them.

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 brief and structured with a clear header and parameter list, avoiding unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded by starting with a concise purpose statement instead of the bracketed '[backup]'. The two-line format is efficient but slightly awkward in presentation.

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 (a backup operation with potential side effects), annotations provide some behavioral hints, but there's no output schema. The description lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., success status, backup file location), error handling, or dependencies. For a manual backup tool in a system with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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?

The description lists 'backupId' as a required string parameter, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no details. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the parameter name—it doesn't explain what a backupId is, how to obtain it, or its format (e.g., UUID, numeric ID). For a single parameter with no schema documentation, this is insufficient to guide proper usage.

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 the tool performs a backup operation ('backup.manualBackupCompose') and mentions it's a POST request, which implies creation/initiation. However, it doesn't specify what 'Compose' refers to (likely Docker Compose configurations) or differentiate it from similar backup tools like 'manualBackupMariadb' or 'manualBackupWebServer' in the sibling list. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity about the resource being backed up.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing backup configurations), timing considerations, or compare it to other backup-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'dokploy_backup_create', 'dokploy_backup_listBackupFiles'). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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