Docker MCP Server

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 states the action ('Stop') but doesn't clarify critical details: whether this is a graceful stop versus force kill, what happens to container resources after stopping, if it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.

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 of a mutation tool (stopping a container) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error handling) and usage context, which are crucial for an agent to invoke this tool correctly and safely. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in operational guidance.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema already provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both 'containerId' and 'timeout', the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't compensate with additional context like format examples or usage tips.

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 ('Stop') and target ('a running Docker container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_container' or 'start_container', but the verb 'Stop' is specific enough to imply halting execution rather than deletion or initiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the container must be running), exclusions (e.g., not for stopped containers), or comparisons to siblings like 'remove_container' for deletion or 'start_container' for restarting. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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