Docker MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool creates and starts containers, it lacks critical information about permissions needed, whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., if a container with the same name exists), resource implications, error handling, or what happens on failure. For a complex container management tool, this 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.

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

The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that are front-loaded and zero waste. Every word earns its place by stating the action and providing usage guidance without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters with nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or behavioral nuances needed for a container execution tool. The description should provide more context about the operation's implications.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.

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 clearly states the action ('run a container') and specifies it involves both creation and starting, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_container' and 'start_container'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these specific alternatives, missing full sibling differentiation.

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 description provides clear context by stating this is the 'preferred method for starting containers', which implies when to use it over alternatives like 'create_container' followed by 'start_container'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or detail specific scenarios where other tools might be better.

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