Ploi.io MCP Server

List Ploi Docker containers

ploi_list_containers

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Docker containers on a Ploi server with pagination. Provide server ID to get containers, and optionally page and per_page for paginated results.

Instructions

Retrieve a paginated list of Docker containers on a Ploi server.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "server_id": "<server_id>"
    },
    "name": "ploi_list_containers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Pagination page number.
`per_page`	No	Items per page.
`server_id`	Yes	Ploi server ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds only that the result is paginated, which is already implied by pagination parameters. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or ordering are disclosed.

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 that conveys all essential information without unnecessary words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 list tool with well-documented parameters and annotations, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the fact that the return is a standard paginated list, and the description mentions that. A minor improvement could be noting the default pagination values.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 (retrieve), resource (Docker containers), and scope (on a Ploi server). It also mentions pagination, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ploi_get_container.

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 listing containers but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ploi_get_container or ploi_create_container. No when-not-to-use or condition information is given.

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