DevContainer MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: building, generating, getting status, listing templates, modifying, and testing DevContainers. The descriptions reinforce these distinct roles, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., build_devcontainer, generate_devcontainer) with snake_case throughout. This predictability aids agent understanding and tool selection.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools are well-scoped for a DevContainer management server, covering key operations without bloat. Each tool earns its place by addressing a specific aspect of the DevContainer lifecycle.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for DevContainers: creation (generate/build), reading (get status, list templates), updating (modify), and testing. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.
Average 2.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It vaguely implies testing but doesn't specify what gets tested (e.g., configuration, runtime), whether it's destructive, requires permissions, or has side effects like modifying files.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it lacks detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what testing involves, expected outcomes, or error handling, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'testCommands' interact with default tests or what 'workspaceRoot' path format is expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Test DevContainer functionality' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what testing entails. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'build_devcontainer' or 'get_devcontainer_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Build' implies a potentially time-consuming or resource-intensive operation, but the description doesn't mention execution time, side effects (e.g., creating container images), error handling, or any constraints like permissions or system requirements. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more front-loaded by immediately clarifying the tool's scope or differentiating it from siblings, but as-is, it's appropriately sized for its limited content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of building a DevContainer (which can involve Docker, dependencies, and runtime setup), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the build process entails, expected outputs (e.g., success/failure states), or how it interacts with siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (workspaceRoot, configPath, rebuild) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain how 'configuration' relates to 'configPath' or default behaviors, nor does it provide usage examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Build DevContainer from configuration' states a clear verb ('Build') and resource ('DevContainer'), but it's vague about what 'from configuration' entails—it doesn't specify whether this refers to a default configuration, a custom file, or something else. It also doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'generate_devcontainer' or 'modify_devcontainer', leaving ambiguity about their different roles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'generate_devcontainer' (likely for creating configs) and 'modify_devcontainer' (likely for updating existing ones), there's no indication of prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a file but doesn't disclose whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool that likely creates or modifies configuration files, this lack of detail is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of generating configuration files and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'devcontainer.json' is, how the generation works, error handling, or return values. For a tool with no structured output and behavioral unknowns, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of natural language prompts or how the baseTemplate interacts with generation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate devcontainer.json from natural language description'. It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('devcontainer.json'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'modify_devcontainer' or 'build_devcontainer'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_templates' or 'test_devcontainer' in terms of scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose this over 'modify_devcontainer' or 'build_devcontainer', or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the DevContainer isn't found, or if there are rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get DevContainer status and information'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't fully leverage the opportunity to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'workspaceRoot' documented as 'Workspace root path' with a default of '.'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but since there's only one parameter and schema coverage is high, the baseline is appropriately met without needing extra compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get DevContainer status and information' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('DevContainer status and information'), but it's somewhat vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'test_devcontainer' that might also provide status-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'build_devcontainer', 'test_devcontainer', and 'modify_devcontainer', there's no indication whether this is for checking current state, verifying configurations, or other specific contexts. No explicit when/when-not statements or alternative references are included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Modify' implies mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing configurations, whether changes are reversible, or potential side effects. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a mutation tool.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'DevContainer configuration', what types of modifications are supported, what the tool returns, or error conditions. Given the complexity of configuration modification, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how modifications are applied, what format the natural language description should use, or provide examples of valid modifications.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Modify') and target resource ('existing DevContainer configuration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_devcontainer' or 'build_devcontainer' which might also affect configurations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'generate_devcontainer' (likely for creation) and 'modify_devcontainer' (for updates), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when to choose one over another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and every part earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on usage scenarios and behavioral details. It's complete enough for a basic list operation but could benefit from more guidance in this server context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'category' documented as 'Filter templates by category'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of categories or how filtering works. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('available DevContainer templates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'generate_devcontainer' or 'get_devcontainer_status', which might also involve template operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'generate_devcontainer' and 'get_devcontainer_status', there's no indication of whether this is for browsing templates, selecting them for use, or other contexts. It lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-devcontainer MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Siddhant-K-code/mcp-devcontainer/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Siddhant-K-code/mcp-devcontainer)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-devcontainer MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Siddhant-K-code/mcp-devcontainer/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Siddhant-K-code/mcp-devcontainer)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Siddhant-K-code/mcp-devcontainer'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server