Inspect a Docker network to retrieve its driver, IPAM subnet/gateway, and attached containers. Use it to diagnose connectivity issues or verify network configuration.
[READ] Inspect one network (driver, IPAM subnet/gateway, attached containers).
Args: network_id: Network id or name. target: Target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| network_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the "[READ]" tag is consistent with that. The description adds a light behavioral signal by listing the inspected facets, but discloses nothing about failure modes (unknown/ambiguous network name) or resolution order between id and name. With annotations covering safety, a 3 fits.
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?
Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a compact Args block; no filler sentences. The "[READ]" prefix is mildly redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation but costs little.
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?
With no output schema, the description appropriately names what the inspection returns and documents both inputs, including the nullable target default. Only the error/ambiguity behavior for a non-existent or non-unique network name is unaddressed.
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 description carries the full burden and does add real meaning: network_id accepts "id or name" (broader than the schema title implies) and target is "Target name from config; omit for the default." Both parameters are covered with behavior the schema does not express.
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?
States a specific verb-and-resource pair ("Inspect one network") and enumerates what the inspection surfaces (driver, IPAM subnet/gateway, attached containers). The singular "one network" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_networks without needing the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: pass a network id/name to get detail on that single network. It never states when to prefer this over list_networks or inspect_container-style siblings, nor any precondition such as the network needing to exist. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.