Skip to main content
Glama
L337-org

docker-mcp-server

by L337-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

buildx_imagetools_create

Combine existing per-platform image tags into a multi-arch manifest list and push it in one operation, simplifying multi-platform image distribution.

Instructions

Create a manifest list / OCI image index from existing per-platform tags.

Replaces docker manifest create + docker manifest push - builds the index and pushes it in one operation. Source tags must already be pushed; this only stitches them together. Verify the result with buildx_imagetools_inspect. Does not raise on a non-zero CLI exit (a missing buildx plugin or a timeout still raises) - inspect returncode/stderr in the result.

Args: target: Tag for the new manifest list (-t) sources: Source image references to combine append: Append to the existing manifest at target rather than replacing dry_run: Print the resulting manifest without pushing annotations: OCI annotations (repeatable; passed verbatim) platforms: Filter source platforms when combining descriptor_files: Files to read source descriptors from, instead of refs (copied to the target host if no local plugin) builder: Override the active builder timeout_seconds: Subprocess timeout (default 600s)

Returns: dict: {"returncode": int, "stdout": str, "stderr": str, "truncated": bool}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appendNo
targetYes
builderNo
dry_runNo
sourcesYes
platformsNo
annotationsNo
timeout_secondsNo
descriptor_filesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.1.4
  2. Removedv2.1.4
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / descriptor_files
      Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / files
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": null,
-  "items": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
  4. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations covering only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds significant behavioral context: it mentions the operation 'builds the index and pushes it in one operation', and importantly discloses that it 'Does not raise on a non-zero CLI exit... inspect returncode/stderr'. It also describes the dry_run flag. This exceeds the bare annotations and informs the agent about side effects and error handling.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is organized into a compact summary, an Args list with one-line explanations, and a Returns section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value—there is no filler, and the structure makes quick scanning easy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description explicitly states the return dict format and fields. It covers error behavior (non-zero exit), parameter nuances, and prerequisites. For a moderate-complexity tool with 9 parameters, this is complete—an agent has all the information needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It lists all nine parameters with brief but meaningful explanations: target, sources, append, dry_run, annotations, platforms, descriptor_files, builder, and timeout_seconds. For example, it notes annotations are 'passed verbatim' and descriptor_files are 'copied to the target host if no local plugin'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a precise statement: 'Create a manifest list / OCI image index from existing per-platform tags.' This names the specific operation and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling buildx tools by clarifying it stitches existing tags rather than building or inspecting. It clearly differentiates from `buildx_imagetools_inspect`.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states a clear prerequisite: 'Source tags must already be pushed; this only stitches them together.' It also suggests a verification step with `buildx_imagetools_inspect`. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like `buildx_build` or `image_push`, so the usage context is clear but lacks an explicit whitelist/blacklist of when not to use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools