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

dockhand-readonly-mcp

by cgfm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Get a Docker network summary

get_network_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a sanitized summary for a specific network ID from Dockhand, providing a clear snapshot of network configuration and status.

Instructions

Gets a sanitized summary for one network ID returned by list_networks.

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": {
      "network_id": "<network_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_network_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
network_idYes
environment_idNoOptional Dockhand environment ID from list_environments.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools