dockhand

by Theo-Gkisis

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct Docker operation (image build, container exec, stats, logs, stack management, etc.), with clear descriptions that prevent confusion. The only potential overlap is between container_start and run_container, but descriptions clarify that one starts an existing container and the other creates and starts a new one.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use verb_noun (build_image, delete_container), others use noun_verb (container_exec, container_inspect), and list tools use list_noun. While individually readable, the lack of a unified pattern (e.g., all verb_noun or all noun_verb) makes it harder to predict tool names.
Tool Count4/5
With 23 tools covering images, containers, volumes, networks, and stacks, the number is appropriate for a Docker management server. It's comprehensive but not overwhelming, though a few tools (like list_networks and list_volumes) could be merged without loss of clarity.
Completeness4/5
Core Docker workflows are well-covered: building/pushing images, running/executing/inspecting containers, managing stacks. However, missing network creation/removal and volume creation mean agents may hit dead ends when trying to set up isolated test environments.
Average 3.6/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 12 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the container must exist already, what happens if it's already running, or side effects. The output schema exists but the description does not hint at the return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief but under-specified. It does not earn its place because it adds no useful information beyond the input schema's title. A concise description should be complete enough to guide usage.
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 that there is an output schema and sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, preconditions (e.g., container must exist and be stopped), or postconditions. The tool is too important to have such a minimal description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should add meaning beyond the parameter name. It only repeats 'name to start the container' which adds no semantic value or constraints (e.g., format, allowed characters, examples).
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 states 'Starting a container' which is a clear verb+resource, but it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'run_container' which also starts a container (after creating it). The description could be more specific that this tool starts an existing container.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_container' (which creates and starts) or 'container_restart'. The agent gets no context for decision-making.
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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'stop' but does not explain side effects (e.g., container state change, potential data loss), idempotency, or error conditions. This is insufficient 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two lines) but contains redundancy ('User will pass the container name' and 'Args: container_name: Docker Container name'). It is not well-structured (no bullet points or separation) but is minimally adequate.
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?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits important context such as expected output (though an output schema exists), error handling, and any behavioral notes. It feels incomplete for a production tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description merely repeats the parameter name and purpose already evident from the input schema (type string, title 'Container Name'). It adds no additional constraints, examples, or format details. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 (stop) and resource (container) with the required parameter (container_name). It is unambiguous but lacks detail on what stopping entails or how it differs from sibling tools like container_restart.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., container must exist and be running), exclusions, or typical scenarios.
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, and the description gives no behavioral details beyond the obvious. It does not explain whether the container is stopped then started, if there is any cooldown, or what happens to running processes. The description carries the full burden but fails to provide meaningful transparency.
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 concise with two lines, front-loading the purpose. However, it is too brief, sacrificing completeness for brevity. Every line earns its place, but more context could be added without losing conciseness.
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 no annotations and a single required parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, side effects, or required permissions. Even though an output schema exists, its content is not described, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value by stating 'name to restart the container', which essentially repeats the parameter name and title. No additional format, constraints, or examples are given.
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 states 'Restarting a container' which clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like stop_container followed by start_container, so it lacks sibling distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_container + start_container, or when restart might be preferred. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only says 'collect and display'. Missing details: whether logs are streamed or one-shot, behavior for stopped containers, log format, or error handling (e.g., container not found).
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 brief and to the point, with no wasted words. The structure lists parameters separately. However, key behavioral info is missing, which dampens conciseness.
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 no annotations and minimal description, the tool may need more context (e.g., log format, output schema nature). The description does not cover what the output looks like or edge cases, making it incomplete for an agent.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains that container_name identifies the container and tail sets the number of lines (default 200). This is basic but sufficient for the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('collect and display') and the resource ('logs for a container'). It differentiates from sibling tools like stack_logs (stack-level logs) and container_stats (performance stats).
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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., stack_logs for stack logs, container_inspect for config). No prerequisites or conditions for use are mentioned.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavior such as whether it runs detached, pulls missing images, or handles port conflicts. Minimal transparency 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Relatively concise: two main sentences plus parameter list. The note about alpine tag is helpful but slightly expands length. No wasted sentences.
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?
Adequate for a simple testing tool but lacks behavioral nuances (e.g., detached mode, error handling). Output schema exists but return values not described. Missing prerequisite info like Docker availability.
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?
Description adds meaningful context to all parameters beyond the schema: image with default tag advice, container_port and host_port with examples. Only container_name is terse but still clear.
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?
Clearly states it runs a Docker container locally for testing. The verb 'Runs' and resource 'container' are specific. However, it could better distinguish from 'container_start', which may restart an existing stopped container.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'container_start'. Lacks when-not or prerequisite conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses basic behavior: executes a command and returns output. However, it lacks detail on shell used (likely /bin/sh), handling of stderr, or non-zero exit codes. Since no annotations are provided, more transparency would be beneficial but the description is minimally adequate.
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?
Two sentences plus a brief bullet list. No extraneous content. Front-loaded with purpose statement. The structure is clean, though the Args section could be integrated more formally.
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 simplicity of the tool (two string params, output schema exists), the description is mostly sufficient. However, it omits details like what shell executes the command, whether it returns both stdout and stderr, or exit code behavior. Minor gaps in completeness.
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?
Schema descriptions are missing (0% coverage), but the description's Args section adds clear meaning: 'Docker Container name' and 'shell command to run inside the container, e.g. "ls -la /app"'. This adds value beyond the schema and aids agent understanding.
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 it executes a shell command inside a running container and returns output. It specifies 'inside a running container', which differentiates it from sibling tools like run_container that create new containers. However, it could explicitly state that the container must already be running.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_container, container_logs, or other sibling tools. The description implies execution of arbitrary commands but does not mention prerequisites, limitations (e.g., no interactive execution), or when not to use it.
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 provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions deployment and explains args but omits side effects, idempotency, or output 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?
Extremely concise: one purpose sentence and two arg explanations. Every sentence adds value, no waste.
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?
Adequate for a simple deploy tool but missing details about post-deployment behavior (e.g., health check, return value) no mention of whether it updates or creates anew.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'unique name for this stack, used to group/manage its containers' and 'full contents of a docker-compose.yml describing the services'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'deploys' and resource 'multi-container application from a docker-compose YAML', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_image or run_container.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like run_container or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not contextual usage.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all Docker images' and does not mention that it is a read-only operation, potential pagination, or performance implications. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word adds value, fitting the tool's simplicity perfectly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description 'List all Docker images' is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does without ambiguity. No additional context is required.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all Docker images' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly defining the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_image, delete_image, and push_image, which perform different image operations.
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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or boundaries. For example, it does not specify that this tool lists all images globally (no filters) or that it complements other image tools like inspect.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic behavior (shows status) without disclosing side effects, data persistence, rate limits, or the meaning of 'status'. The analogy helps but lacks depth.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and analogy. Second sentence directly explains the parameter. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, output schema exists), the description covers purpose and parameter adequately. An output schema is present, so return values need not be described. Could improve by explicitly noting read-only behavior or expected error cases.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning: 'unique name for this stack, used to group/manage its containers' goes beyond the schema's 'Project Name' title. However, it does not specify allowed characters, length constraints, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Shows the status of all containers' and the resource 'compose stack', with a helpful analogy to 'docker compose ps'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like container_inspect (individual container) and list_containers (all containers without stack context).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you need status of a stack's containers) but does not provide explicit when-not scenarios or alternative tools. No guidance on prerequisites or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the force removal behavior for stopped containers but omits details like permissions, irreversibility, or behavior with running containers. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 concise with two clear sentences and an inline argument list. It is front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and force removal. It could mention error cases or required permissions, but it is sufficient for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal value by restating the parameter as 'image name to be deleted', which is nearly a tautology of the schema's title 'Image Name'. No additional format or constraints are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a Docker image by tag or ID' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the force behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_container or remove_volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for deleting images but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_images or other deletion tools. The force behavior hint is useful but not a full usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of stopping the container if running. However, it omits other important details such as what happens if the container does not exist, whether data is permanently lost, or any required permissions. The description adds useful context but is not fully transparent 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences plus an args line) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the args section is redundant with the schema and could be omitted. Overall, it is concise and well-structured, losing a point for the unnecessary repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose and main behavioral nuance (auto-stopping). It does not explain return values or error handling, but the output schema likely covers the return structure. It is reasonably complete for a straightforward delete operation, though mentioning permanence would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats the parameter name ('Container name that should be deleted') without adding semantic details like format, validation rules, or examples. While the parameter is simple (single string), the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's title and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Delete a container by its name.' It specifies a unique action (delete) and resource (container), and distinguishes from siblings like 'stop_container' (only stops) and 'container_start' (starts). The added behavior 'Stops it first if it's still running' further clarifies the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use the tool: when you want to delete a container. It implies that prior stopping is unnecessary, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if you only want to stop) or mention alternative tools. Given the context signals listing many sibling tools, some exclusion guidance would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It states that it returns containers with status, but doesn't specify scope (e.g., all containers or only running), or any other behavioral traits like performance or filtering.
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 concise sentence that directly states the purpose. However, it could be slightly more specific about 'status' details. Front-loaded and no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tools simplicity (0 parameters, no required inputs, existing output schema), the description sufficiently covers the functionality. No gaps for the agent to misuse.
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?
No parameters defined, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable for a parameterless tool. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns'), the resource ('all containers'), and additional detail ('with their status'), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_images or list_networks.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., container_inspect for a single container). No context on prerequisites or exclusions.
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 provided, so description must disclose behavior. States it collects logs and returns lines per container with default tail, but omits details like streaming vs static, prerequisites (stack running), or error 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?
Exceptionally concise: one action sentence plus parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value, with no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and tool is simple, description covers core purpose and parameters. Slightly lacking on behavioral details but sufficient for basic use.
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?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but description adds clear semantics: project_name is 'unique name for this stack', tail is 'number of lines per container (default 200)'. This compensates effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Describes a specific action: collecting logs from all containers in a compose stack. Clearly distinguishes from sibling like container_logs (single container) and stack_status (status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage context by naming the stack scope, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over container_logs or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what information is returned (environment, mounts, network, health), but does not explicitly state it is read-only with no side effects. However, inspection impliedly is read-only.
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?
Description is concise with two sentences plus an Args line. Front-loaded with the main purpose, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It lists key fields returned. The tool is simple with one parameter, so description is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description only repeats the parameter name ('container_name') with a minimal phrase 'Docker Container name' that adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema's title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Returns detailed information about a container' and lists specific details (environment variables, mounts, network IP, health status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like container_logs or container_stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., container_logs for logs, container_stats for stats). The purpose is clear but lacks context on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read operation for live stats, but doesn't detail whether it's a snapshot or stream, or any constraints beyond the container being running.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded, no redundant content. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description is complete: it describes input and purpose adequately.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds a clear explanation for the only parameter (container_name: Docker Container name), compensating for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows live CPU and memory usage for a running container, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from siblings like container_inspect or container_logs.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., container_inspect for detailed config). Only implies the container must be running, but no exclusions or when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description hints at read-only behavior by stating it lists stacks, and adds the behavioral note that it includes stopped ones. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects, or error conditions.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and focused.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose. It is complete in its context.
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?
With 0 parameters, schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain any parameters, so it meets the baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Lists', the resource 'compose projects' (stacks), and specifies the scope 'including stopped ones', which differentiates it from siblings that list other resources.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use list_stacks versus sibling tools like list_containers, list_images, or stack_status. The description does not mention prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists networks with driver and scope, but does not mention that it is a safe, read-only operation or any other behavioral traits. The description is adequate for a simple list but lacks disclosure of safety or side effects.
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, clear, and efficient sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values in detail. It already mentions what is returned ('driver and scope'), which is sufficient for a simple list tool.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% automatically. With no parameters, the description does not need to add further meaning; the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Lists' and a concrete resource 'Docker networks', and specifies the returned fields ('driver and scope'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_containers or list_images.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it implicitly indicates it is for listing networks, which is clear in context of sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation but does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., whether it lists volumes from all drivers or just default ones). No contradictions exist.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose efficiently with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the core functionality. It lacks details about pagination or volume scope but remains adequate for a simple listing action.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable. The baseline of 4 applies as per guidelines for no-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('lists') and the resource ('all Docker volumes'), and specifies the returned fields ('driver and mountpoint'). This distinctly identifies the tool's purpose without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing to list all Docker volumes, but provides no guidance on when not to use it or mentions alternative tools (e.g., filtering or inspecting specific volumes). It is minimally adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states that the operation permanently removes containers, networks, and volumes with data deletion. This is strong disclosure of destructive behavior, compensating for the absence of annotations.
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: two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main action and then clarifies the parameter. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality well. It could be improved by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., stack must exist) but is already adequate.
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 single parameter 'project_name' is described as 'unique name for this stack, used to group/manage its containers', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's title. This compensates for 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Stops and permanently removes' and the resource 'compose stack', listing affected components (containers, networks, volumes). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'stop_stack' which only stops without removal.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'stop_stack' or 'deploy_stack'. There is no mention of prerequisites or situations where removal is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the need for prior docker login and that credentials are not accepted, which is useful. It implies tagging and pushing, but does not detail error behavior, network requirements, or potential side effects like modifying local image tags.
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 well-structured with a concise main sentence followed by bullet-like Args section. It is slightly longer than necessary but front-loaded with the primary action. Every part adds value.
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 presence of an output schema (not provided), the description omits any mention of return values or success/failure responses. It also lacks details on idempotency or behavior if the image already exists. It is adequate for a simple push operation but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description effectively documents all three parameters with clear explanations and examples. Each argument (local_image, repository, image_tag) is described in a way that adds meaning beyond the schema's property definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool tags a local Docker image and pushes it to a registry, with examples and distinction from sibling tools like build_image and delete_image. The verb 'push' and resource 'image' are specific, and the examples clarify the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the prerequisite of prior docker login and that credentials are not accepted, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no comparison to siblings like deploy_stack or build_image.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description correctly discloses destructive behavior ('permanently lost') and a specific error condition (fails if in use). It does not address what happens if the volume doesn't exist, but the core behavioral traits are well communicated.
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: three short sentences plus an Args line. Every sentence adds essential information (purpose, consequence, failure condition, parameter). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it destroys, and when it fails. It does not describe the return value or confirmation, but given the output schema exists and the tool's low complexity, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only restates the parameter name ('volume_name: name of the volume to remove'), adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. It does not provide format constraints, examples, or additional context to fully clarify the parameter's usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deletes'), the resource ('a Docker volume by name'), and includes a critical consequence ('Data stored in it is permanently lost'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinctly different from sibling tools like delete_container.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the tool's primary use (deleting a volume) and a key precondition ('Fails if the volume is currently in use by a container'). This provides clear context for when the tool can be used, though it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it beyond the failure case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description explains the non-destructive nature ('without removing them, so it can be started again later'). It could add more detail on state preservation but is adequate for a stop operation.
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?
Two sentences: first explains purpose, second defines the parameter. No redundant words; highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's action and parameter adequately for a simple stop operation. An output schema exists (not shown) likely describing return value, so the description is sufficiently complete.
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?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds essential meaning: 'unique name for this stack, used to group/manage its containers.' This clarifies the parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool stops all containers in a compose stack without removal, using specific verb 'stop' and resource 'stack'. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'remove_stack' which removes the stack.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when wanting to stop a stack for later restart, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., 'stop_container' for individual containers, 'remove_stack' for deletion).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that build context is the folder containing the Dockerfile, that COPY/ADD of other files works normally, and that Windows and Git Bash style paths are accepted. No annotations to contradict.
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?
Two paragraphs plus Args list, each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
Covers purpose, parameters, and key behavioral trait, but lacks explanation of output/return value and potential errors. With output schema not shown, some gap remains for a build tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage); description adds full meaning: image_tag example and dockerfile_path explanation including path styles, fully compensating for lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Builds a Docker image from a Dockerfile' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like push_image, run_container, delete_image.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context such as build context behavior and path formats, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.
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:

[![mcpdockery MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Theo-Gkisis/mcpdockery/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Theo-Gkisis/mcpdockery)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcpdockery MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Theo-Gkisis/mcpdockery/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Theo-Gkisis/mcpdockery)

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/Theo-Gkisis/mcpdockery'

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