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 'Start' implies a state-changing operation, it doesn't describe permissions needed, whether this affects container data, error conditions (e.g., if container doesn't exist), or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses precise technical language appropriate for Docker operations.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after starting (does it return container status? success confirmation?), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of container operations and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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%, with the single parameter 'containerId' well-documented in the schema as 'Container ID or name'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so 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.

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Start') and resource ('a stopped Docker container'), using precise technical terminology. It distinguishes from siblings like 'stop_container', 'run_container', and 'create_container' by focusing exclusively on restarting already-existing containers.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'a stopped Docker container', suggesting it should only be used on containers that are currently stopped. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for running containers or creating new ones) or name specific alternatives like 'run_container' for starting new containers.

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