Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral information (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true). The description adds minimal value by indicating this is a GET operation, which aligns with the read-only annotation. However, it doesn't provide any additional behavioral context such as what permissions are required, what format the backups are returned in, or whether there are any rate limits.

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?

While the description is extremely brief, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single bracketed phrase '[user] user.getBackups (GET)' doesn't form a complete sentence or provide meaningful information. True conciseness would efficiently convey purpose and usage, but this is simply inadequate.

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 tool with no output schema and no parameters, the description should at minimum explain what the tool returns and its purpose. The annotations provide good behavioral coverage, but the description fails to explain what 'backups' are in this context, what scope they cover, or what format they're returned in. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools, this is insufficient.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't attempt to describe nonexistent parameters. The baseline for zero parameters with full schema coverage is 4, as there's nothing additional needed.

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 '[user] user.getBackups (GET)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and HTTP method without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what 'backups' refers to, what resource is being accessed, or what the operation accomplishes. This provides no meaningful guidance beyond what's already in 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include dokploy_backup_listBackupFiles and dokploy_volumeBackups_list, there are clearly related backup listing tools, but the description offers no differentiation or context about when this specific user-focused backup retrieval tool should be selected.

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