List Docker containers on a local or remote server, showing status, image, and ports. Includes stopped containers, so check the state field to identify running ones.
List Docker containers with their status, image, and ports. Stopped containers are included, so a name appearing here is not a name that is running — read state
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server | No | Remote server name from config (optional, runs locally if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose an important gotcha: stopped containers are included, so a name appearing here is not necessarily a running one. It also implies a read-only listing operation, though it doesn't explicitly state absence of side effects or describe output structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose and returned fields, and the second adds a valuable behavioral caveat. The warning is front-loaded near the purpose it clarifies.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter fully documented in the schema, the description covers what is returned, that stopped containers are included, and the important interpretive caveat. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already has 100% coverage of the single 'server' parameter, explaining it is optional and runs locally if omitted. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List Docker containers' and names the returned fields—status, image, and ports. It also distinguishes itself from inspect/stats/top siblings by framing this as the container-level listing operation that includes stopped containers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit comparison to siblings like docker_inspect, docker_stats, or docker_logs, so an agent must infer when to use this tool. The warning that stopped containers are included implies a listing purpose, but it never says 'use docker_inspect for a single container' or 'use docker_stats for metrics.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.