Skip to main content
Glama
L337-org

docker-mcp-server

by L337-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

network_create

Create a Docker network with specified driver, IPAM, and options, returns the network's full inspect payload. Use to establish isolated or swarm-wide connectivity before attaching containers.

Instructions

Create a network.

The daemon default driver is bridge (single-host); use overlay for swarm-wide networks. Creating a network attaches nothing - connect containers afterwards with network_connect or at start via container_run(network=...). Created networks carry provenance labels. A duplicate name is always rejected, so creating is not idempotent - check network_list first when the network may already exist.

Args: driver: Driver name (daemon default bridge; overlay for swarm scope) options: Driver-specific options dict ipam: IPAM configuration as a dict (engine shape: {"Driver", "Config": [{"Subnet", "Gateway", ...}]}) internal: Restrict external access labels: Labels to set on the network enable_ipv6: Enable IPv6 networking attachable: Allow standalone containers to attach (swarm overlay networks) scope: Network scope; the driver picks a sensible default when omitted ingress: Make this an ingress network for swarm routing-mesh

Returns: dict: The created network's full inspect payload

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipamNo
nameYes
scopeNo
driverNo
labelsNo
ingressNo
optionsNo
internalNo
attachableNo
enable_ipv6No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.6
    • removedInput schema / properties / check_duplicate
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": null,
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "local",
+  "global",
+  "swarm"
+]
  3. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses non-idempotency (duplicate name rejected), provenance labels, and that creation attaches nothing. These are important behavioral traits beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover permissions or rate limits.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, then key behavioral notes, then a clear Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the core information is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameters, explains the return type, provides usage context, and mentions the idempotency caveat. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly without further lookups.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args section, including defaults (e.g., bridge default, internal default false), driver options, IPAM dict shape, and scope defaults. This adds meaning well beyond the schema's types and enums.

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 clearly states the verb and resource ('Create a network') and differentiates it from sibling tools like network_connect and network_list by explaining the attach behavior. It also clarifies driver selection (bridge vs overlay) and the non-idempotent nature, making it unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says to connect containers afterwards with network_connect or via container_run(network=...), and advises checking network_list first when a duplicate may exist. It also explains when to use overlay vs bridge, giving clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative.

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