Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide significant behavioral information (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare - it doesn't mention what gets updated, whether this requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens to existing backup configurations. However, since annotations cover the core safety profile, the description meets the lower bar but 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 under-specified rather than concise. It wastes space on a redundant header ('[backup] backup.update (POST)') and presents a parameter list that duplicates the schema without adding value. The structure doesn't front-load essential information about the tool's purpose. While brief, it's not effectively concise as it fails to communicate necessary information efficiently.

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?

For a mutation tool (update operation) with 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what gets updated, what the expected outcome is, how to identify the backup to update, or what happens to existing settings. The annotations help somewhat, but the description fails to provide the contextual information needed for proper tool invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 10 parameters (9 required), the description carries full burden for explaining parameter meanings. While it lists parameter names and types, it provides no semantic context about what each parameter represents (e.g., what 'schedule' format to use, what 'keepLatestCount' controls, what 'metadata' should contain). The parameter list is essentially a restatement of the schema without added meaning, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal context ('backup.update (POST)'). It mentions 'backup' but doesn't specify what aspect of a backup is being updated (configuration, schedule, settings, etc.). While it lists parameters, this doesn't constitute a clear purpose statement. The description fails to provide a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes this tool's function.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from sibling backup tools like 'dokploy_backup_create', 'dokploy_backup_one', or 'dokploy_backup_remove'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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