Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dockhand-readonly-mcp

dockhand-readonly-mcp

by cgfm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Get a Docker container summary

get_container_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a sanitized summary for a container by ID, excluding sensitive data like environment variables, labels, mounts, logs, and raw inspect info.

Instructions

Gets a sanitized summary for one container ID returned by list_containers. It never returns environment variables, labels, mounts, logs, commands, or raw inspect data.

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": {
      "container_id": "<container_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_container_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
container_idYes
environment_idNoOptional Dockhand environment ID from list_environments.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools