Manage Docker volumes to organize and persist container data. Perform actions like list, create, remove, inspect, or prune volumes for efficient container management.
Manage Docker volumes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action to perform on volumes | |
| volume | No | Volume name | |
| driver | No | Volume driver | |
| force | No | Force operation | |
| filter | No | Filter results |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. The single sentence 'Manage Docker volumes' does not reveal any behavioral traits such as destructive actions (remove, prune), side effects, or required permissions. The input schema shows action enum including potentially destructive operations, but the description offers no transparency.
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 short (one sentence), but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is not front-loaded with the most important information (the available actions). While concise, it is under-specified and fails to convey the tool's core functionality effectively.
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 the tool (5 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., Docker must be running). The schema helps, but the description should provide context for the agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
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%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the relationship between action and other parameters (e.g., which actions require volume name). Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 'Manage Docker volumes' identifies the resource but is vague. It does not specify the specific actions (list, create, remove, inspect, prune) that the tool performs, which are provided in the input schema. Sibling tools like docker_containers and docker_images indicate similar management tools, but this description lacks operational specificity.
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 sibling tools such as docker_containers or docker_images. The description does not clarify appropriate contexts or scenarios for managing volumes compared to other Docker resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.