Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lower. However, the description adds minimal value beyond what annotations already convey - it only confirms the HTTP method (GET) which aligns with readOnlyHint. It doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or what specifically 'backup.one' means operationally.

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 extremely concise (two lines) but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity. The first line '[backup] backup.one (GET)' is cryptic and unhelpful, while the parameter listing is minimal. While there's no wasted text, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure with a parameter list is reasonable but the content is insufficient.

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 annotations provide good behavioral coverage but schema description coverage is 0% and there's no output schema, the description is incomplete. For a tool with one required parameter, the description should explain what backupId represents and what the tool returns. The sibling tools suggest this is part of a backup management system, but the description fails to situate this tool within that context or explain its specific role.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. The description only lists 'backupId (string, required)' without explaining what a backupId is, where to find valid values, format constraints, or examples. Given the low schema coverage and single parameter, this minimal documentation represents a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 '[backup] backup.one (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and HTTP method without specifying what the tool actually does. It doesn't clearly state whether this retrieves backup details, downloads a backup, or performs some other operation on a backup resource. The sibling tools list shows several backup-related tools (create, listBackupFiles, manualBackup*, remove, update), but this description fails to distinguish itself from them.

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?

The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple backup-related siblings (dokploy_backup_create, dokploy_backup_listBackupFiles, dokploy_backup_remove, dokploy_backup_update), the agent receives no indication whether this is for retrieving metadata, downloading content, or some other specific backup operation. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for invocation.

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