mcpdockery

by Chandrakant1988

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_network

Create a new Docker network with a specified driver to isolate container communication or enable multi-host connectivity.

Instructions

Creates a new Docker network. Args: network_name: name to give the new network driver: network driver to use, e.g. "bridge" (default), "overlay" (swarm), "macvlan"

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": {
      "network_name": "<network_name>"
    },
    "name": "create_network"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`driver`	No		bridge
`network_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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description only states 'Creates,' implying a mutating operation. It does not disclose side effects like potential conflicts (e.g., duplicate network names), required permissions, or idempotency behavior.

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, consisting of a single sentence and parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description does not mention what the tool returns after creation (e.g., network ID, success message). While not always critical for a creation tool, the absence of output expectations leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description covers both parameters: network_name and driver, with driver providing example values ('bridge', 'overlay', 'macvlan'). This adds context beyond the schema defaults, giving the agent sufficient understanding of parameter usage.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Creates a new Docker network.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_networks and create_volume.

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 implies usage for network creation but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide conditions for when to use this tool over others. Basic guidance is sufficient for a simple creation action.

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