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 adds no behavioral context beyond that. It mentions 'POST' and 'backup', implying a write action, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false, but doesn't clarify effects like whether it triggers an immediate backup, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. With annotations covering basic traits, the description adds minimal value.

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 fluff. However, it could be more front-loaded by stating the purpose upfront rather than embedding it in brackets, and the parameter explanation is overly terse given the lack of schema coverage.

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 write operation with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the outcome, error conditions, or how this fits into the broader backup system, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate without additional context.

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 (string, required)' without explaining what a backupId is, how to obtain it, or its format. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of details, leaving the agent guessing about input semantics.

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 a 'web server', which clarifies the verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling backup tools (e.g., manualBackupCompose, manualBackupMariadb) beyond specifying 'web server', leaving ambiguity about what exactly is being backed up. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.

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 other backup tools (e.g., manualBackupCompose, manualBackupMariadb) or automated backups. The description only lists parameters without context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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