List processes inside a Docker container from the host, read-only, without exec or TTY. Optionally add a server name to inspect a remote host.
List the processes running inside a Docker container, read from the host. Read-only: no exec, no TTY
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Container name to inspect | |
| server | No | Remote server name from config (optional, runs locally if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.22.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the safety burden. It explicitly discloses Read-only, no exec, and no TTY, and clarifies the operation runs from the host, which is important behavioral context. It doesn't describe failure modes, but for a simple read-only list the essential traits are covered.
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?
One compact sentence conveys the action, scope, and safety profile without wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and the behavioral qualifier is placed right after.
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 two-parameter read-only list tool, the description plus full schema coverage is sufficient to invoke it correctly. It doesn't specify expected output formatting or runtime prerequisites, but those are not critical gaps for a top/process-listing tool.
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 input schema already describes name and server with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'Docker container' in prose and does not offer extra semantics such as how server selection affects the host read, so no credit above baseline.
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 the processes running inside a Docker container.' It adds 'read from the host,' which distinguishes it from tools that exec into containers or inspect configuration, and from docker_list/docker_stats siblings.
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 statement 'read from the host' and 'no exec, no TTY' gives clear context: use this for safe, host-side process inspection, and not for interactive or mutating actions. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the context and exclusions make the intended choice clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.