Audit Dockerfiles for base images, build stages, exposed ports, and ENV/ARG settings, then cross-reference them with config files.
Audit Dockerfiles: base images, stages, exposed ports, ENV/ARG, cross-ref with config files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project name/path (default: active). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope content (which Dockerfile aspects are audited and that it cross-references config files), a modest addition beyond the structured fields. It says nothing about output format or depth of analysis.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited enumeration; no filler and the audited dimensions are immediately visible.
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 read-only audit tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is inspected. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at the shape or scope of the audit result, but the annotations carry the safety profile.
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?
Only one optional parameter (project) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents its meaning and default. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and the baseline for a fully documented schema is 3.
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?
States a specific verb (audit) and resource (Dockerfiles) and enumerates what it inspects: base images, stages, exposed ports, ENV/ARG, and config cross-referencing. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not name the closely related analyze_config or get_env_usage.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a sibling like analyze_config would be preferred. The Dockerfile scope is implied by the resource name but nothing routes the agent between overlapping analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.