mcpdockery

by Chandrakant1988

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_volume

Creates a new Docker volume with a specified name and optional driver.

Instructions

Creates a new Docker volume. Args: volume_name: name to give the new volume driver: volume driver to use (default "local")

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": {
      "volume_name": "<volume_name>"
    },
    "name": "create_volume"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`driver`	No		local
`volume_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

Behavior2/5

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

The description indicates a creation side effect but remains silent on important behaviors such as idempotency (error if volume exists), permission requirements, or any other consequences. With no annotations providing extra safety context, the sparse description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary wording, though it could be slightly more informative without bloating.

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 likely returns a confirmation or volume object, but no output details are provided despite an output schema being indicated. Missing error scenarios, timeout behavior, or relationship to other Docker operations leaves the description incomplete for full autonomous use.

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 description includes a brief inline explanation for each parameter (volume_name and driver) and notes the default for driver. However, the explanations are shallow and do not elaborate on validation, constraints, or special values.

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 ('Creates') and the resource ('Docker volume'), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from other volume-related tools but the verb-object structure is sufficient.

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?

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool compared to alternatives like list_volumes, remove_volume, or create_network. The description offers no contextual decision-making information.

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