Skip to main content
Glama

Crypto, web, finance and app data tools

Dockerfile Linter

dockerfile_lint

Lint a Dockerfile for security and best practice: unpinned or latest images, running as root, secrets in ENV/ARG, curl piped to sh, ADD of URLs, apt and pip caches, sudo, chmod 777, missing HEALTHCHECK. Scored.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "dockerfile": "<dockerfile>"
    },
    "name": "dockerfile_lint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dockerfileYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it discloses the check set and that results are 'Scored', which is useful behavioral context, and an output schema covers return structure. It does not say whether input is a file path or raw content, nor that it is a non-mutating static analysis with no network/execution.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the check list tightly packed; every item earns its place and there is no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read-style tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: scope and checks are clear and return values are covered by the schema. The only meaningful gap is the path-vs-content ambiguity of the input.

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?

Only one parameter ('dockerfile') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not clarify whether it expects file content or a path — a genuine ambiguity an agent could get wrong. It adds nothing beyond restating the resource.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (lint) and resource (Dockerfile) and enumerates the exact check categories covered, so an agent knows precisely what issues it flags. No sibling tool overlaps in this domain, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description conveys the domain of use (Dockerfile security/best-practice review) but never states when to reach for this versus other inspection tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources