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, which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the parameter list—it doesn't explain that this creates a scheduled backup job, what happens when it runs (e.g., volume snapshots), or any side effects like resource usage. With annotations covering basic traits, the description adds some value but lacks depth for a creation tool.

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 structured as a parameter list, which is somewhat organized but not front-loaded with purpose. It wastes space by repeating obvious information (e.g., 'POST') and includes redundant formatting. However, it avoids excessive verbosity, making it moderately concise but inefficient in conveying key information.

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 complexity (19 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema) and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool creates (a backup schedule), how it behaves, or what to expect upon success/failure. For a creation tool with many parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 by explaining parameters. It lists all 19 parameters with types and required status, but provides no semantic meaning—e.g., what 'prefix' is for, how 'cronExpression' formats work, or what 'destinationId' refers to. This adds little beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 restates the tool name ('volumeBackups.create') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify that this creates a scheduled backup configuration for a volume, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_volumeBackups_update' or 'dokploy_backup_create'. The purpose is implied but not clearly stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing volume or destination), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'dokploy_volumeBackups_update' for modifications or 'dokploy_backup_manualBackup*' for one-time backups. Usage context is completely absent.

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