Stop a Docker container by name. It stays stopped until you manually start it again.
Stop a Docker container by name. Nothing here starts it again: there is no start tool, so the operator brings it back themselves
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Container name to stop | |
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by warning that the container is not started again and that the operator must bring it back manually. This is meaningful behavioral context for a state-changing operation, though it could also mention effects on running processes or return behavior.
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 short sentences, no redundancy, and the core operation is front-loaded. The caution about starting the container earns its place as essential operational context.
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?
The definition is sufficient for a simple two-parameter stop operation: the schema documents parameters, and the description covers the most important non-obvious consequence (no automated restart). It does not describe return values, but the absence of an output schema makes this less critical.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'name' and 'server' already have descriptions in the input schema. The description only reinforces 'by name' and adds no new parameter-level semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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: 'Stop a Docker container by name.' This clearly identifies the operation and immediately distinguishes it from related container tools like docker_restart and docker_logs.
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?
The intended use is implied ('Stop a Docker container'), and the warning that no start tool exists provides some context, but the description does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as docker_restart or state when stopping is preferred. No exclusions or explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.