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 (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a POST request, implying a state-changing action, but doesn't elaborate on what 'runManually' does (e.g., triggers an immediate backup, may have side effects like resource usage, or requires specific permissions). With annotations covering basic traits, the description provides some value but lacks depth on execution behavior.

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 and HTTP method, but it includes redundant information (repeating 'volumeBackups' and listing parameters without added value). It's structured as two lines, which is efficient, but the parameter listing is minimal and could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has no output schema, annotations provide basic hints, and schema coverage is 0%, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool is invoked (e.g., success/failure outcomes, return values like backup status), nor does it cover error conditions or dependencies. For a state-changing tool with one parameter, more context is needed to guide 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 only defines 'volumeBackupId' as a required string without descriptions. The description lists the parameter but adds no semantic meaning—it doesn't explain what a volumeBackupId is, where to find it, or its format (e.g., UUID, name). For a single parameter with no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.

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 states the tool name 'volumeBackups.runManually (POST)' which implies it manually runs a volume backup, but it's vague about what 'runManually' entails compared to automated backups. It specifies the resource (volumeBackups) and verb (runManually), but doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_volumeBackups_create' or 'dokploy_backup_manualBackupCompose', leaving the exact purpose ambiguous.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing volume backup ID), exclusions, or compare it to other backup-related tools in the sibling list, such as 'dokploy_backup_manualBackupCompose' or 'dokploy_volumeBackups_create'. This lack of context makes it unclear when this specific manual run is appropriate.

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