mcpdockery

by Chandrakant1988

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

run_container

Run a Docker container locally for testing by specifying image, container name, and port mapping to access the app via localhost.

Instructions

Runs a Docker container locally for testing Args: image: Docker image to run, e.g. "nginx:latest" If no tag is specified, then usel alpine for default.It is smaller and faster to pull container_name: container name container_port: port the app listens on INSIDE the container, e.g. "80" for nginx host_port: port on your machine to access it, e.g. "8080" → http://localhost:8080

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": {
      "image": "<image>",
      "container_name": "<container_name>",
      "container_port": "<container_port>",
      "host_port": "<host_port>"
    },
    "name": "run_container"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`image`	Yes
`host_port`	Yes
`container_name`	Yes
`container_port`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for revealing side effects. It mentions running a container locally but does not disclose that it creates a new container, maps ports, pulls images if missing, or whether the container runs detached. The default alpine tag behavior is mentioned, but other significant side effects are omitted.

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 relatively concise and structured with an 'Args:' section and clear parameter lines. However, it contains a typo ('usel' instead of 'use') and a slightly run-on sentence, which slightly detracts from clarity.

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?

Given that the tool has four required parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers all necessary inputs and the overall purpose. It does not explain the return value, but that is expected to be covered by the output schema, so the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema provides no descriptions, but the description explains all four parameters (image, container_name, container_port, host_port) with concrete examples and the image default behavior. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool 'Runs a Docker container locally for testing', providing a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like container_start (which starts an existing container) but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives examples for each argument and explains the default alpine tag behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like container_start or deploy_stack. The intended use case is implied but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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