mcpdockery

by Chandrakant1988

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

container_start

Start a Docker container by its name to bring it into a running state.

Instructions

Starting a container Args: container_name: name to start the container

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_start"
  }
}

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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose side effects, state changes, idempotency, error behavior, or permissions. Starting a container is a state-changing operation, but the description only states the action without explaining consequences.

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 extremely concise and contains no unnecessary words or redundant content. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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 description is too sparse to be considered complete for an agent. It omits behavioral details, error conditions, return expectations, and any relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer important context.

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 has one parameter with no description coverage, but the tool description includes an Args line: 'container_name: name to start the container.' This minimally compensates for the schema gap, though it lacks detail about format, constraints, or validation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Starting a container.' It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like container_stop and container_restart, though it does not explicitly mention Docker or context.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_container or deploy_stack. It does not explain prerequisites, when starting is appropriate, or how it differs from related operations.

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