Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (implying data loss) and readOnlyHint=false (confirming mutation), which the description aligns with by implying removal. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (POST), which isn't covered by annotations, and hints at the parameter structure. However, it doesn't elaborate on behavioral aspects like confirmation prompts, error handling, or irreversible effects beyond what annotations suggest.

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 HTTP method, followed by a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words, but the formatting (brackets and parentheses) could be cleaner. Overall, it's efficient, though a more structured sentence might improve clarity without adding bulk.

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 destructive nature (annotations show destructiveHint=true) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but misses details like return values, error cases, or side effects. With annotations providing safety cues, it's passable but incomplete for a mutation tool, as it doesn't fully guide the agent on outcomes or risks.

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. It lists 'backupId' as a required string parameter, matching the schema, but adds no semantic details (e.g., format, source, or validation rules). Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of extra meaning beyond the schema reduces it to 3, as it merely repeats the parameter name without context.

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 removes a backup ('backup.remove') and specifies it's a POST operation, which clarifies the action and HTTP method. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_backup_delete' (not listed but implied by naming patterns) or other backup-related tools (e.g., 'dokploy_backup_create'), leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., backup must exist), when not to use it (e.g., if backup is in use), or comparisons to other backup tools like 'dokploy_backup_update' or 'dokploy_backup_one'. This absence 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.