Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't explain what 'manual' entails (e.g., triggers an immediate backup, may affect system performance), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. With annotations covering basic hints, the description adds minimal value, scoring a baseline 3.

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 but not efficiently structured; it includes redundant elements like '[backup]' and '(POST)' that don't add clarity, and the parameter listing is minimal without context. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded purpose and wastes space on tautology, making it less helpful than it could be for its length.

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 manual backup operation for PostgreSQL), lack of output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns (e.g., backup status, file location), error conditions, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer usage in a potentially critical operation.

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 description must compensate, but it only lists 'backupId (string, required)' without explaining what a backupId is (e.g., identifier of a backup configuration or target), where to find it, or format examples. This adds little meaning beyond the schema's type and requirement, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 clarification ('[backup] backup.manualBackupPostgres (POST)'), which is tautological. It mentions 'backup' and 'manualBackupPostgres' but doesn't specify what resource is being backed up (e.g., a PostgreSQL database instance) or distinguish it from sibling backup tools like 'manualBackupCompose' or 'manualBackupMysql'. The purpose is vague beyond the name.

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 about prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing backup configuration), timing (e.g., for on-demand backups), or comparisons to automated backups or other database backup tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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