Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, destructive, or idempotent, and it's open-world, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'POST' method, implying a write operation, but does not disclose details like what the backup entails, potential impacts, or any rate limits. With annotations covering basic hints, the description adds little value beyond the method.

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 method, but includes redundant formatting like brackets and parentheses. It efficiently conveys the core action in one line, though it could be more polished by removing extraneous characters.

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 involves a write operation (POST) with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the backup does, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it fits into the backup workflow, making it inadequate for informed use.

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 its meaning, format, or how to obtain it. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the parameter's semantics unclear.

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 MongoDB ('backup.manualBackupMongo'), which clarifies the verb (backup) and resource (MongoDB). However, it does not differentiate from sibling backup tools like 'manualBackupPostgres' or 'manualBackupMariadb' beyond the resource name, leaving the purpose somewhat vague in distinguishing specific use cases.

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 lacks context such as prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to other backup tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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