Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It does not explain what 'update' entails (e.g., modifies backup settings), potential side effects, or any constraints like permissions or rate limits. Since annotations provide basic safety hints, the description adds minimal value, scoring a baseline 3.

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 poorly structured, starting with a redundant header and dumping a parameter list without explanation. It is not front-loaded with purpose, and the parameter list is verbose without adding value, making it inefficient and hard to parse quickly.

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 (20 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema) and annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details like what the tool updates (e.g., backup schedule settings), expected outcomes, or error conditions, making it inadequate for effective tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 20 parameters, the description lists parameter names and types but adds no semantic meaning (e.g., what 'cronExpression' controls or how 'serviceType' relates to other IDs). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving most parameters unexplained beyond their basic types.

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 merely repeats the tool name '[volumeBackups] volumeBackups.update (POST)' and lists parameters without stating what the tool does. It fails to specify the action (e.g., 'update configuration of a volume backup schedule') or the resource involved, making it tautological and unclear.

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 like 'dokploy_volumeBackups_create' or 'dokploy_volumeBackups_delete'. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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