Manage Docker networks to create, list, inspect, connect containers, or remove networks using bridge, overlay, or host drivers.
Manage Docker networks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action to perform on networks | |
| network | No | Network name or ID | |
| container | No | Container to connect/disconnect | |
| driver | No | Network driver (bridge, overlay, host, etc.) | |
| subnet | No | Subnet for network (e.g., 172.20.0.0/16) | |
| gateway | No | Gateway for network |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It fails to disclose any side effects (e.g., destruction, mutation, permissions) or action-specific behavior, such as whether create or remove operations are destructive or require special privileges.
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 very short (3 words), but for a tool with 6 parameters and multiple actions, it is underspecified. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary information.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values or behavior. It does not address any action outcomes, error conditions, or response format, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully described there. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.
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 states the tool manages Docker networks but uses the vague verb 'manage', which does not specify the particular operations (list, create, remove, etc.) that are defined in the input schema. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like docker_containers or docker_compose, which also manage Docker resources.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.