Skip to main content
Glama
AliKarami

MikroMCP

by AliKarami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Manage Container Env

manage_container_env
DestructiveIdempotent

Add or remove a container environment variable with idempotent name+key checks. Preview changes with dryRun and resolve value conflicts before applying.

Instructions

Add or remove a container environment variable. Idempotent by name+key. add returns already_exists if the entry exists with the same value; throws CONFLICT if the value differs.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesEnvironment variable name — part of idempotency key
nameYesContainer name
valueNoEnvironment variable value (required for add)
actionYesAction to perform
dryRunNoPreview changes without applying.
routerIdNoRouter ID; omit to use the default router.
confirmationTokenNoToken from a prior APPROVAL_REQUIRED response. Re-submit the identical call with this token to confirm the destructive action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.14.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmationToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Token from a prior APPROVAL_REQUIRED response. Re-submit the identical call with this token to confirm the destructive action.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / dryRun / description
      Previous value: -"Preview changes without applying"New value: +"Preview changes without applying."
    • changedInput schema / properties / routerId / description
      Previous value: -"Target router identifier from the router registry"New value: +"Router ID; omit to use the default router."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "routerId",
-  "action",
-  "name",
-  "key"
-]New value: +[
+  "action",
+  "name",
+  "key"
+]
  3. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description genuinely adds beyond them: it explains the idempotency key composition (name+key), the already_exists success path, and the CONFLICT failure when the same key carries a different value. It does not, however, address the destructive remove path or the APPROVAL_REQUIRED confirmation workflow.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, followed by the idempotency and error semantics. No filler; every sentence carries actionable information.

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 destructive, 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation, idempotency contract, and two error outcomes, and annotations cover the safety profile. It leaves the approval/confirmation flow and dryRun behavior to the schema, which is a minor gap but not a blocking one.

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 is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description reinforces the name+key idempotency relationship that the schema only partially gestures at. It adds little else about the remaining parameters (dryRun, routerId, confirmationToken), which are already documented in the schema.

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 pair (add/remove) and a precise resource (container environment variable), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_container_envs, manage_container_mount, and manage_container_config. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied through the action enum inside the schema; the description never states when to reach for this tool versus list_container_envs or get_container_config, nor when add vs remove applies. It also says nothing about when dryRun or the confirmation-token approval flow is warranted.

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