docker-facts

Get Image Info

get_image_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Repository facts: official status, pulls, stars, whether it is archived.

Use to judge whether an image is the canonical one and still maintained. Archived images still pull but receive no security patches.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Docker image name as you would write it in a FROM line: "node", "postgres", "grafana/grafana". Official images may omit the "library/" prefix.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`image`	No
`pulls`	No
`stars`	No
`exists`	No
`hub_url`	No	Page a human can open.
`official`	No	True for Docker Official Images (the "library" namespace).
`description`	No
`is_archived`	No	Archived images still pull but receive no further updates, including security patches.
`last_updated`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the operation is clearly safe. The description adds useful non-obvious context: 'Archived images still pull but receive no security patches.' No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core facts, and each sentence adds value. There is no wasted text or redundant restating of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, use case, and maintenance implication. Nothing important is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage for the single required parameter is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'name' format. The description does not add extra parameter detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states what the tool returns: repository facts such as official status, pulls, stars, and archived state. It is easy to understand the tool's purpose, though the description does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling tag-related tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage intent: 'Use to judge whether an image is the canonical one and still maintained.' It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a simple read-only metadata tool.

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

All docker-facts tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct primary purpose: verifying a specific tag, inspecting repository metadata, and browsing available tags. There is minor overlap because check_image_tag lists real tags on a miss and both it and list_image_tags return size/platform details, but the stated use cases separate them clearly.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent imperative verb_noun pattern with snake_case: check_image_tag, get_image_info, list_image_tags. The naming is predictable and makes the action and target obvious for each tool.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a focused Docker image facts server. Each tool covers a necessary, non-redundant operation and none feel like filler.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the key workflows for evaluating Docker images: verifying a tag, listing available tags, and assessing repository maintenance. A possible minor gap is lack of a search/discovery tool for finding image names, but for the stated fact-checking purpose the surface is nearly complete.

Resources

Need Help?