Retrieve full status of a container by name or ID, including state, URL, port, detected technology, and resource usage. Shows environment variable names only, never values.
Full status of one container (by name or id): state, URL, port, detected technology, resources. Env-var VALUES are never returned — names only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| container | Yes | Container name or id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that environment variable values are never returned—only names—which is a meaningful privacy/security behavior. The read-only nature of 'status' is also clear from the description.
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?
Two sentences deliver all necessary information with no filler. The core purpose and return fields are front-loaded, followed by a concise security-relevant caveat. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description is complete: it identifies the input and enumerates the output fields. Since there is no output schema, the explicit list of returned information is valuable and sufficient for an agent to understand what the call will provide.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'container' is already described as 'Container name or id'. The description repeats this by saying 'by name or id', adding no substantial semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: returning the full status of one container by name or id. It enumerates the returned fields (state, URL, port, detected technology, resources), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_apps or get_logs.
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 clearly frames when this tool is appropriate: when you need comprehensive status for a single container. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the singular 'one container' provides clear context and implies that batch or log-specific needs belong to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.