Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear safety hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare, such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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, but it wastes space on parameter formatting that duplicates the schema. The two sentences are somewhat redundant and could be more efficiently structured to convey purpose rather than restating schema details.

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 complexity (2 required parameters with 0% schema coverage), no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or the operational context (e.g., listing backups for a specific resource). Annotations cover safety, but the description doesn't add necessary context for effective use.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists parameters ('id' and 'volumeBackupType') with types and enum values, but doesn't explain their meaning (e.g., what 'id' refers to, what the enum values represent in context). It adds minimal semantics beyond the bare schema, insufficient to compensate for the coverage gap.

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.list') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify that this tool retrieves or lists volume backups, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_volumeBackups_one' or 'dokploy_backup_listBackupFiles'. This is essentially a tautology with parameter documentation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dokploy_volumeBackups_one' (for getting a single backup) or 'dokploy_backup_listBackupFiles' (for listing backup files), nor does it specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.

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