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 'manual' backup, implying user-initiated action rather than automated, which provides context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits, leaving behavioral gaps.

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's purpose, though it includes redundant formatting like brackets and HTTP method. It wastes no words but could be more polished by removing extraneous details. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly structured.

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 has no output schema and annotations only cover basic hints, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the backup entails, how to verify success, or what the response looks like. For a backup operation with potential side effects, more context is needed to guide the agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema only indicates 'backupId' is a required string. The description lists the parameter but adds no meaning—it doesn't explain what a backupId is, how to obtain it, or its format. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, offering minimal value.

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 of MySQL, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling backup tools like 'manualBackupPostgres' or 'manualBackupMariadb' beyond the MySQL specificity. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare it to other backup methods (e.g., automated backups or other database types). 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.