Code MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'clean up' but doesn't specify what that entails—e.g., whether it stops/removes containers, deletes images/networks/volumes, requires confirmation, or has side effects. For a potentially destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and target.

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 Docker cleanup (potentially destructive) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'tracked' means, what resources are affected, or the outcome. For a tool that could impact system state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary complexity.

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 ('clean up') and target resources ('tracked Docker containers and resources'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like docker_containers (list) or docker_system (system info), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is not vague or tautological, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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., after docker_run or docker_build), exclusions (e.g., not for active containers), or related tools (e.g., docker_containers for inspection first). Usage is implied only by the verb 'clean up,' which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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