dockhand-readonly-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: health check, list environments, list containers, get one container, list networks, get one network, list stacks, and aggregate overview. The list vs. get pairing for containers and networks prevents confusion, and the overview and health tools are uniquely scoped.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, get_*_summary). The outlier is dockhand_health, which reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb-based action, but it is still understandable and does not break the overall pattern significantly.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, this server is well-scoped for a read-only Docker inspection and monitoring service. Each tool covers a necessary facet (environments, containers, networks, stacks, health, and overview) without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the main read-only monitoring operations: listing and summarizing containers and networks, listing stacks and environments, plus a health check and runtime overview. A get_stack_summary or get_environment_summary could be expected, but their absence seems intentional for security/sanitization reasons, and the core workflows are covered.
Average 4.1/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds field-level transparency by stating exactly what is included and omitted, giving a clear expectation of the response content beyond what annotations provide.
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 two sentences, tightly packed with relevant information. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and key data categories; the second sentence crisply lists what is omitted. No wasted words or duplication of schema/annotation data.
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 tool has low complexity (one optional parameter, safe read operation) and rich annotations. The description adequately covers the return scope and omissions. It does not mention default behavior when environment_id is omitted or pagination, but these are minor gaps for a simple list tool.
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 for parameters is 100% and the only parameter, environment_id, is already described in the schema as 'Optional Dockhand environment ID from list_environments.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 the specific verb 'Lists' with resource 'containers' and clearly enumerates the included fields (identity, image, runtime health, ports, metrics, network membership) and excluded fields (secrets, labels, mounts, logs, commands). This scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_container_summary and 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any when-not conditions, such as needing secrets/labels/mounts, nor does it point to get_container_summary or list_networks for those cases.
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?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that container membership is 'sanitized' and that labels and driver options are omitted. This informs the agent about data fidelity and privacy/security handling, which is helpful for interpreting results.
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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a single clarification about exclusions. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.
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 a simple list operation with one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. It mentions omissions and sanitization. It doesn't explain the effect of environment_id or output format, but the schema covers the parameter and the tool is straightforward, so the description is reasonably complete.
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?
The input schema already covers the single parameter (environment_id) with a description and pattern, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or add any usage semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool lists network-related information (driver, internal flag, IPAM ranges, and sanitized container membership) and explicitly notes what is omitted (labels and driver options). It identifies the resource (Docker networks) and the verb (lists), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_network_summary, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.
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?
Usage is implied through the listed fields: if you need network driver, internal flag, IPAM ranges, or container membership, this tool provides them. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_network_summary, nor any mention of environment filtering despite the optional environment_id parameter. The context signals reveal siblings but the description itself gives no comparative direction.
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?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'sanitized' detail and the constraint that the ID comes from list_networks, providing some context but not covering error behavior or return format.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, no redundancy.
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?
With strong annotations and a simple parameter set, the description provides adequate context for a read-only summary tool. It doesn't detail return values or error cases, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity.
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 50%: network_id lacks a description, but the tool description clarifies it must come from list_networks. environment_id is described in the schema. The description partially compensates for the missing schema doc but doesn't add syntax details.
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 retrieves a sanitized summary for a single network ID, with the ID sourced from list_networks. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_networks (which lists) and get_container_summary (which targets containers).
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 implies usage after calling list_networks, providing a clear workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it for single-network inspection.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns aggregate counts; it does not mention environment scoping or response structure, but this is acceptable given annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's essence without any waste. Every word contributes to understanding the purpose and scope.
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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the main function and return categories. It omits mention of the optional environment_id filter, but that is already fully documented in the schema, so the overall context is sufficiently complete.
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% for the single optional parameter, environment_id, which is fully described as an optional Dockhand environment ID from list_environments. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Returns') and resource scope ('aggregate container, health, network-isolation, and stack-state counts'), clearly distinguishing this aggregate overview tool from sibling list/detail tools like list_containers, get_container_summary, and list_stacks.
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 phrase 'for routine monitoring' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It implies this is for high-level aggregate checks rather than detailed troubleshooting, and the sibling tool names reinforce the distinction, though no explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable security context by stating that connection URLs and credentials are omitted, which is a behavioral trait beyond the 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action 'Lists'. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or filler.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description covers what it does and its key security behavior. Combined with the annotations, an agent has sufficient context to use it correctly without needing further output details.
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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the security note about omitted credentials provides relevant context for understanding the output.
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 it lists Docker environments known to Dockhand, using a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('Docker environments'). The added detail about safe summaries (omitting credentials) further clarifies its scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_containers 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or specific conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'configured' and 'reachable and healthy' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, return format, or what happens if the service is unhealthy.
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, front-loaded with the action, and contains zero waste. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the single-sentence description is largely sufficient. It could specify what a negative result means or the response format, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is nearly complete, warranting a 4 rather than 5.
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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. With zero parameters, the description need not add parameter syntax or meaning, and the baseline of 4 applies.
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 'checks' and resource 'configured Dockhand service' with the outcome 'reachable and healthy'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or get individual resources.
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 implies this is for verifying the service's health, and all sibling tools are list/get operations, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by detailing the fields returned and specifically noting that sensitive data (compose files, repository URLs, paths, secrets) are omitted, which helps set expectations. It does not introduce contradictions and provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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 two sentences long and immediately states the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a critical exclusion note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.
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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return fields. It covers the essentials and the schema fills in the environment_id behavior. It does not mention pagination or filtering specifics, but those are implied by the parameter description and the tool's simplicity, so it is sufficiently complete.
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?
The schema already describes the only parameter (environment_id) with 100% coverage, including a note that it is from list_environments. The tool description does not add any further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 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 tool lists stack names, states, types, and resource counts, using a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('stacks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on stacks and explicitly noting what is omitted (compose files, repository URLs, paths, secrets), making the scope unmistakable.
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 implies usage by outlining the exact information returned, making it clear when to use this tool for stack summaries. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the singular focus on stacks and the optional environment_id parameter (which references list_environments) provide practical context for filtering. The absence of explicit 'when not to use' guidance is a minor gap.
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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description explicitly lists what it never returns (environment variables, labels, mounts, logs, commands, raw inspect data), which is critical behavioral context for a Docker inspection tool.
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 that are dense with information—purpose and exclusions—with no redundant wording.
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?
Adequate for a simple read-only tool with annotations: it states the scope (one container) and sanitization exclusions. Missing a preview of what the summary includes, but no output schema exists.
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 description clarifies that container_id must be one returned by list_containers, adding provenance meaning. environment_id already has a description in the schema, covering the other parameter.
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?
Clearly states it gets a sanitized summary for one container ID, making the verb and resource explicit. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing list_containers and omitting sensitive data.
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?
Clear context: use for one container ID returned by list_containers. It implies a preceding list_containers call but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like get_network_summary.
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:

[![dockhand_readonly_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cgfm/dockhand_readonly_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cgfm/dockhand_readonly_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![dockhand_readonly_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cgfm/dockhand_readonly_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cgfm/dockhand_readonly_mcp)

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/cgfm/dockhand_readonly_mcp'

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