Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentsID Guard

AgentsID Guard

Official
by AgentsID-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

container_list

List Docker containers, with optional inclusion of stopped ones. Access is controlled by container.read permission.

Instructions

List Docker containers. Requires container.read permission.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "container_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allNoInclude stopped containers (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and permission but does not disclose the default behavior (e.g., only running containers unless 'all' is set), output format, or potential errors. The core read-only nature is implied by 'List'.

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 two sentences: the action and the permission requirement. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information, making it highly concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. However, the description does not mention what the response includes (container IDs, names, etc.), and there is no annotation to fill the gap. This leaves the agent uncertain about the return value, making the description incomplete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'all' parameter fully described in the schema ('Include stopped containers (default: false)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Docker containers'). It is distinct from sibling tools like container_inspect and container_logs, which have different purposes.

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 provides a permission requirement ('Requires container.read permission') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like container_inspect or container_logs. The usage is implied by the name and context, but there is no explicit alternative guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools