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, but the description doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond that. It mentions 'POST' and parameters, which are already implied by the schema, but fails to disclose details like backup location, permissions needed, or potential side effects, leaving gaps despite annotations.

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 front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it includes a redundant parameter list that adds little value. Overall, it's efficient but could be more structured by integrating key details into a cohesive sentence.

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 of a backup operation, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the tool returns, error conditions, or prerequisites, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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%, and the description only lists 'backupId' as a required string parameter without explaining what it represents (e.g., an existing backup identifier or a new backup name). This adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, insufficient to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'manual backup' for MariaDB, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling backup tools like 'manualBackupCompose' or 'manualBackupPostgres' beyond the database type, leaving the purpose somewhat vague regarding what exactly gets backed up or how it differs.

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, such as automated backups or other database backup tools in the sibling list. The description only lists parameters without context, so the agent lacks explicit or implied usage instructions.

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