mcpdockery

by Chandrakant1988

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

container_inspect

Inspect a Docker container and retrieve its configuration, mounts, network details, and health status, with sensitive values redacted.

Instructions

Returns detailed information about a container: environment variables, mounts, network IP, and health status. Env var values that look like secrets (PASSWORD, TOKEN, API_KEY, etc.) are redacted. Args: container_name: Docker Container name

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": {
      "container_name": "<container_name>"
    },
    "name": "container_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`container_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavior (redacting secret environment variable values) and 'returns' implies a read operation, but it omits error conditions and any side-effect statement beyond the implied read-only nature.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the redaction caveat is placed second, making the structure clear and scannable.

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 simple one-parameter inspect tool, the description provides enough context: it states what data is returned, mentions the redaction behavior, and names the required input. It does not need to restate output schema details because an output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides no description for container_name, and the description only repeats 'Docker Container name'. It does not clarify whether an ID is accepted, whether the match is exact, or what happens if the container is not found, so it adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with the verb 'returns' and the resource 'container', and enumerates the specific kinds of information returned (environment variables, mounts, network IP, health status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as container_logs or container_stats.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives.

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