Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value by specifying 'GET', which aligns with annotations but does not provide additional context (e.g., error handling, rate limits, or response format). No contradiction exists, so the score reflects moderate added value beyond annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it includes a redundant 'Parameters:' section that partially repeats schema information. While efficient in length, the structure could be improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly or omitting them since they are in the schema.

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 of a retrieval tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., backup metadata), error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools. Annotations help, but the description does not compensate for the missing output schema, making it incomplete for effective agent 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%, and the description lists 'volumeBackupId (string, required)' under 'Parameters:', which adds basic semantics (parameter name, type, and requirement). However, it does not explain what a volumeBackupId is, its format, or where to obtain it, leaving gaps. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 as the description provides some but incomplete parameter information.

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 '[volumeBackups] volumeBackups.one (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and title with minimal context. It mentions 'GET' which implies retrieval, but lacks a specific verb-resource combination (e.g., 'Retrieve a specific volume backup by ID') and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_volumeBackups_list' or 'dokploy_volumeBackups_create', leaving the purpose vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after listing backups), or exclusions. With siblings like 'dokploy_volumeBackups_list' and 'dokploy_volumeBackups_create', the absence of usage guidelines makes it unclear how this tool fits into workflows.

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