HomeLab MCP

by chip10

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

docker_start_container

Start an allowed Docker container by providing its name and confirming the action.

Instructions

Arranca un contenedor permitido.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "docker_start_container"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`confirm`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'starts' without detailing side effects, permission requirements, whether the container must exist, or what happens if it is already running. The 'allowed' qualifier also raises unanswered questions about access control.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks essential details, making the conciseness a weakness rather than a strength.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with two required parameters and no annotation support, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain the confirm field, describe the return output, or provide any context on when this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent with almost no actionable information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation for the 'name' or 'confirm' parameters. The agent gets no added meaning beyond the raw types, and the required 'confirm' field is particularly opaque—its purpose is entirely unexplained.

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 states a clear action ('Starts') and resource ('a container'), which distinguishes it from stop and restart siblings. However, the qualifier 'allowed' is ambiguous and does not clarify what makes a container allowed, slightly weakening the purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus docker_restart_container or docker_stop_container. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.