mcp-podman-crunchtools
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.2.2
- Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., container_list, container_inspect) with clear boundaries. Pod, image, network, volume, and service tools are fully separated, and even similar actions like restart across containers and services are contextually unambiguous.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow the identical pattern `<resource>_<action>_tool` using lowercase with underscores. This is perfectly consistent across all 36 tools, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count4/5With 36 tools, the server covers a broad range of Podman functionality across seven resource types. While on the heavier side, each tool serves a specific purpose and aligns with the comprehensive scope of Podman management. The count is slightly above the ideal but justified by the domain's complexity.
Completeness3/5Core container and image lifecycle operations are well covered, but notable gaps exist: networks and volumes only have list/inspect (no create or remove), container exec is missing, and image build/push are absent. These omissions make the surface incomplete for a full Podman management tool.
Average 3.3/5 across 36 of 36 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
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.jsonto 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
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Restart a container' with no details on what restart entails (e.g., graceful stop then start, timeout-based kill, state after restart). The timeout parameter hints at a kill mechanism, but the description itself reveals nothing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise, but it might be under-specified; however, the conciseness itself is good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple interface but lacks essential behavioral context. Without annotations, the description should explain the restart process and any side effects, but it doesn't. The presence of an output schema and fully documented parameters partially compensates, but the behavioral gap remains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes both parameters (name and timeout), including the default for timeout. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restart') and resource ('a container'), which aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling tools like container_start_tool and container_stop_tool. However, it lacks any elaboration on the specific restart semantics, so it is clear but minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, such as the container needing to be running, or any comparisons with container_start_tool or container_stop_tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create'—a mutation—but does not explain permissions, reversibility, resource implications, or side effects. The description adds no context beyond what the tool's name already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters. It essentially repeats the tool name without adding useful information, making it neither concise nor informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context such as creation behavior, prerequisites, and use cases. For a moderately complex tool with four parameters and no annotations, this is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself mentions no parameters and adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a new pod' with a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like container_create_tool by naming the pod resource, though it lacks any additional context about what creating a pod entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, relationships to other pod operations, or scenarios where container creation might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new container' and gives no information about side effects, such as whether the container is started automatically, whether the image is pulled, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but it is perhaps too terse given the tool's complexity, lacking any additional useful context. Still, as a purely concise statement, it rates highly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, an output schema, and 34 sibling tools, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how this tool fits into the container lifecycle (e.g., does it start the container?), how it relates to image pull/start tools, or what prerequisites exist. The context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all 6 parameters with clear descriptions, including an example for volumes, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level context or additional semantics, earning the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new container.' This clearly identifies the action, and the tool name matches the description. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond the name, and there is no elaboration on what 'create' entails (e.g., whether it also starts the container).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the image must already be pulled) or contrast with pod_create_tool or container_start_tool. The description simply states the action, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about how logs are retrieved, the effect of optional parameters like tail and since, or potential prerequisites, making it highly opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. However, it is so minimal that it conveys no extra structural information, which slightly limits its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists and covers return values, the description omits critical context such as when to use the tool, prerequisites, and behavioral nuances of the optional parameters. For a tool with four parameters and multiple options, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for each field, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantic value, but the schema itself adequately documents the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving container logs, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like service_logs_tool, which also fetch logs, so it lacks explicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as container_inspect_tool or service_logs_tool. The description simply states the action without contextualizing its appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the literal action. It does not mention read-only status, filtering behavior, pagination, or any side effects, leaving the agent with no safety or behavior cues.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but merely restates the tool name. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, failing to add any useful information beyond the name itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the simple parameter set and presence of an output schema, the description does not state that it lists all pods, mentions filtering, or describes the return format. Without annotations, this minimal description leaves key behavioral aspects unexplored.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'filters' parameter is well-described in the schema. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List pods' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (pods), unambiguously distinguishing it from sibling tools like pod_inspect, pod_start, and container_list. It fully identifies the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, such as pod_inspect or container_list. No context is given about typical use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'get' information, implying read-only, but does not disclose permissions, output, error scenarios, or side effects. The description adds little beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise in length, but it is vague and lacks concrete details. It is not bloated, but it does not front-load useful information either, making it merely minimal rather than well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description lacks essential contextual guidance. It does not clarify what 'detailed information' includes, when to prefer this tool over siblings, or any prerequisites. For a tool interacting with containers, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'name' with a full description ('Container name or ID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get detailed information about a container' uses a clear verb and resource, and the name 'container_inspect_tool' distinguishes it from list/start/log tools. However, it does not explicitly mention that it targets a single container by name/ID or contrast it with container_list_tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as container_list_tool or image_inspect_tool. The description does not state any conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'List containers' without revealing that it defaults to running containers only, that it accepts filters, or any potential side effects (though listing is inherently read-only). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's temper.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and gets to the point, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and an output schema; it provides no structural guidance or context beyond a minimal sentence. This balances out to an average score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (three optional parameters, output schema, no annotations), the description is highly incomplete. It omits key behavioral defaults like 'shows only running containers by default' and fails to explain how filters or limits affect results. The agent would need to rely entirely on the schema, which is not ideal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, as all three parameters (limit, filters, all_containers) have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List containers' clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (containers), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like image_list_tool or pod_list_tool. However, it does not specify whether it lists all containers or just running ones, which the schema later clarifies, so it is not fully unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like container_inspect_tool or other list tools. The description does not mention filtering, limiting, or the 'all_containers' option, and there is no context about typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove an image' implies deletion but fails to mention that removal may fail if the image is in use, how the 'force' parameter affects behavior, or that removal is irreversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than elegantly concise. It provides no additional context beyond the tool name, so it does not add value beyond a simple label.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, an output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain when to use this tool, what happens on force removal, or what the return value indicates. The lack of annotations further reduces contextual completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (name and force), so the schema already explains their meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the schema coverage, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove an image' clearly states a specific action (remove) and resource (image). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like image_prune_tool, which also deals with removing images, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 alternatives such as image_prune_tool or container_rm_tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description's single sentence fails to disclose that this operation can forcibly terminate a container, potentially causing data loss or being irreversible. It also omits any mention of permission requirements, container state, or consequences of sending different signals.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. While it is appropriately brief, it is perhaps too terse to provide substantive guidance, but conciseness itself is well handled.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a potentially destructive kill operation, the description lacks important context about safety, prerequisites, and expected behavior. Even with an output schema, the description fails to convey why or when this tool should be used, leaving a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including the default signal. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the action, so the baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sends a signal to a container, which is a specific verb+resource action. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from container_stop_tool, which also sends a signal (e.g., SIGTERM), so the differentiation from siblings is weak.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use kill versus stop or other container tools. There are no usage exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing the destructive nature of the operation. It only says 'Remove a container' without stating that this permanently deletes the container, that running containers require force, or that associated volumes are only removed if explicitly requested. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that conveys the core purpose with zero fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a clear schema, the description omits critical context about destructive side effects and does not explain when to use it among a wide set of sibling container tools. With no annotations and no alternative guidance, the tool description is insufficient for safe or effective usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for 'name', 'force', and 'volumes'. Therefore, the schema already documents the parameters effectively. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The phrase 'Remove a container' has a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the action. It aligns with the tool name and doesn't confuse with listing or inspecting, though it doesn't differentiate from other removal tools explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like container_stop_tool or container_prune_tool. There is no mention of exclusions, preconditions, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only 'List networks' and does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it returns all networks, or how the optional filter affects results. This adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
'List networks' is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is efficient for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has an output schema (though not shown), and the input schema fully documents the only parameter. The description is minimally adequate for a basic list operation, but it lacks usage context such as noting the optional filter or directing to network_inspect_tool for details, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'filters' parameter, which already includes a description ('Filter by key/value pairs'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List networks' clearly states the action (list) and resource (networks). It distinguishes from network_inspect_tool by implying enumeration rather than inspection, though it does not explicitly mention scope or alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 network_inspect_tool or other sibling list tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like read-only safety, auth requirements, or error behavior. It only says 'get detailed information,' providing no side-effect or permission context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is efficient and readable, but it provides minimal added value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage context, behavioral details, and any mention of related tools, making it thin but not deficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter 'name' at 100% with 'Pod name or ID.' The description adds no additional parameter detail, so it relies on the schema, which is sufficient. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('get') and resource ('pod'), specifying 'detailed information,' which aligns with the inspect semantics. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like pod_list_tool, but the 'name' parameter implies single-pod inspection, making the purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives. The description simply states what it does without indicating prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives (e.g., use pod_list first to get names).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description says only 'List volumes.' It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether filters are applied, pagination, or what fields are returned. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two words, which is under-specification rather than concise completeness. It gives no context about filters, usage, or alternatives, so it does not earn its place as a helpful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks contextual details such as the optional nature of filters, how to combine with other tools, or expected return shape in natural language.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the only parameter 'filters' with 'Filter by key/value pairs', so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List volumes' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it retrieves a list of volumes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like container_list_tool and volume_inspect_tool by naming the resource and using 'list' rather than 'inspect'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as volume_inspect_tool for details or other list tools. No mention of when filtering is useful or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'get', which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose whether stats are a one-time snapshot or streamed, whether the container must be running, or if any special privileges are required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence that states the topic and action with zero waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, covering return values. However, the description lacks differentiation from sibling stat-like tools such as container_top_tool and offers no usage context, leaving the description minimally adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema documents the only parameter 'name' with description 'Container name or ID', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond 'container resource usage statistics', so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get container resource usage statistics' with a specific verb and resource. It broadly distinguishes from sibling tools like container_top_tool (processes) and container_inspect_tool (configuration/state), but does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus container_top_tool or container_inspect_tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, so the agent gets no help with tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only action, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, does not modify the image, or explain any authentication or error behavior. Minimal transparency beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words. It is concise and to the point, though under-specified, the brevity is not penalized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a simple schema, output schema present, and no annotations, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It does not mention the single-image scope or contrast with listing tools, but the output schema covers return values. Minimal viable completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (parameter 'name' is described as 'Image name, tag, or ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get detailed information about an image' uses a clear verb (Get) and resource (image), indicating a read operation for detailed data. It is clear but does not differentiate from sibling tools such as image_list_tool or container_inspect_tool, lacking explicit scope like 'for a specific image'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool instead of image_list_tool (for listing) or other inspect tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'List images' only states the action and resource, but does not mention that it is read-only, what data is returned, or any potential side effects. This falls short of the transparency expected for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence 'List images.' It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the core purpose. However, it omits mention of the optional filter capability, which could be considered helpful but not essential for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and does not mention the filter functionality, which is a significant capability of the tool based on the schema. It also lacks context about when to prefer listing over inspecting images. The output schema covers return values, but the overall contextual guidance is incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% and includes a detailed description and example for the 'filters' parameter. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already sufficiently documents the parameter, 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List images' uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('images'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like image_inspect_tool, image_pull_tool, and container_list_tool. It is the only tool for listing images, making its purpose immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as image_inspect_tool for details or image_prune_tool for deletion. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or prefered scenarios, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Get detailed information', which implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what happens if the volume does not exist, whether it triggers any side effects, or any permission requirements. The description adds no context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It earns its place by stating the essential purpose clearly and concisely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, so return values are likely documented elsewhere. However, the description lacks any behavioral or usage context, and the phrase 'detailed information' is vague, leaving the agent to infer what the tool actually returns or does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage with the parameter 'name' described as 'Volume name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already fully documents the single required parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get detailed information about a volume' clearly states the action (get) and resource (volume), and it implies a single volume inspection, distinguishing it from volume_list_tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other inspect tools or mention any scope details, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 that it is for a specific volume, that volume_list_tool should be used for listing, or any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it starts a systemd unit, omitting details about whether the operation is idempotent, whether the unit is enabled, or what side effects may occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and target. It is well-structured and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even with an output schema present and a minimal parameter set, the description is too sparse. It provides no context about systemd unit behavior (e.g., whether the container is started indirectly, if the unit is enabled at boot, or error handling), which limits the agent's ability to confirm its suitability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter unit_name with a concrete example, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Start' and explicitly names the resource as a 'Podman container systemd unit,' making it distinct from sibling tools like container_start_tool (which starts a container directly) and other service management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as container_start_tool or service_restart_tool. It lacks any mention of preconditions, exclusions, or context in which this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only reveals the basic action of starting a stopped container. It does not mention side effects (state change, resource allocation), error conditions (non-existent container, already-running container), permissions, or idempotency. Minimal behavioral context is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, effectively communicating the tool's purpose without any fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimally viable for a simple one-parameter tool; the output schema covers return values and the schema covers parameter meaning. However, it lacks contextual completeness because it doesn't mention preconditions (e.g., container must exist, must be stopped), potential side effects, or how it differs from container_restart_tool. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is fair.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'name' is documented as 'Container name or ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema fully explains the parameter, making further description unnecessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and the target resource ('a stopped container'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like container_stop_tool, container_restart_tool, and container_kill_tool by focusing on starting a stopped container.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does without mentioning exclusions (e.g., containers already running) or recommending other tools for related operations like container_create_tool. The implied usage is clear from the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing whether it performs a graceful shutdown, whether it is idempotent, or what happens if the container is already stopped. The timeout parameter hints at a kill but is not described in the tool description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that states the purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple stop action, the description is adequate but lacks behavioral context such as the graceful-stop-then-kill mechanism and guidance on alternatives. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context around operational behavior would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Stop a running container.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name container_stop_tool distinguishes it from sibling tools like container_kill_tool and container_restart_tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose stop over kill or restart, nor any prerequisites like the container needing to be running.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, authentication requirements, or network dependencies. It does not mention whether pulling overwrites an existing image or how long the operation may take.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, but the description lacks context about the pull behavior, such as output format or interaction with local storage. It is adequate for a minimal tool but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, including an example in its description. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the schema itself is self-sufficient, 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Pull') and resource ('an image from a registry'), which distinguishes it from sibling image tools like image_list, image_inspect, and image_rm. It unambiguously conveys the core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 prerequisites, whether pulling is needed before creating containers, or contrast with image_rm or container_create. The user is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states 'Stop' without disclosing whether the operation is synchronous, requires elevated privileges, or how it affects the running container. The mutating nature is implied but no additional behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, free of filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter and a straightforward action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool's simplicity, complete schema, and presence of an output schema keep the description minimally viable. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral transparency means an agent might not fully understand how this tool differs from container_stop_tool or whether additional side effects exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter unit_name is clearly documented with an example. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Stop' with a specific resource 'Podman container systemd unit', which clearly distinguishes it from container-level tools like container_stop_tool. The phrase 'systemd unit' makes the operational target unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as container_stop_tool, service_start_tool, or service_restart_tool. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., the unit must be managed by systemd) or exclude use cases, leaving the selection entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'get' but does not explicitly Disclose side effects, permissions, or what constitutes 'detailed information.' It adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the tool name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, clear, and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple interface with one documented parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it gives no hints about what specific details are included or when to use it, making it minimally complete but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter ('name' as network name or ID) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides the necessary information, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('network') with scope ('detailed information'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like network_list_tool and container_inspect_tool. It is unambiguous and directly indicates what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as network_list_tool for listing networks or container_inspect_tool for container details. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action and scope ('all its containers') but fails to explain what 'restart' entails (e.g., whether it recreates the pod, whether data is preserved, if it's a rolling restart, or any side effects). This lack of detail could mislead an agent about the operation's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and quickly conveys the resource and scope, achieving maximum clarity with minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is minimal but sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks contextual guidance on when to use it versus the many sibling tools, and no behavioral details beyond the core action. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter 'name' with a clear description ('Pod name or ID'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Restart') and resource ('a pod and all its containers'), distinguishing it from sibling container-level tools like container_restart_tool. It unambiguously communicates the scope of the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the tool name and description: if you need to restart an entire pod, use this tool. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to choose this over container_restart_tool or pod_stop/pod_start, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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?
The description adds 'and all its containers', which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the bare name ‘pod_rm_tool’. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other side effects like irreversibility, force requirements (despite the schema), or impact on associated resources (volumes, networks). The statement is truthful but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently, fully earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple removal tool, the description covers the core action but omits important context like whether the operation is reversible, whether running pods require force, and what happens to non-container resources. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the destructive nature and prerequisites are not fully addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'name' and 'force' clearly described. The tool description does not add beyond the schema, but the schema already carries the semantic load. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove'), the resource ('a pod'), and the scope ('all its containers'), distinguishing it from container-level removal tools like container_rm_tool. This is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pod_stop_tool or container_rm_tool. The description implies a destructive removal, but it doesn't clarify that this permanently removes the pod and containers, unlike stopping which preserves them. The context of sibling tools is not leveraged.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that all containers are stopped, but it does not disclose whether the stop is graceful or force-kills after a timeout, or what happens to the pod state. The schema's timeout description ('Seconds to wait before killing') is relevant but not part of the tool description, so this important nuance is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of any extraneous words. Every word earns its place by conveying the action, the target, and the scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple stop operation with an output schema present, the description conveys the core function. However, given the lack of annotations, it does not fully cover behavioral context such as timeout/kill behavior or usage guidance, leaving some informational gaps. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters (name and timeout), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Stop' and the resource 'pod', and explicitly scopes it to 'all its containers', which distinguishes it from the sibling container_stop_tool. It is specific and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for stopping an entire pod and its containers, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like container_stop_tool. The scope mention 'all its containers' provides some implicit differentiation, so it's above no guidance but below explicit usage instructions.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention what the tool returns ("System details including version, storage, registries, and runtime"), which gives some expectation of output. However, it omits explicit read-only safety, potential errors, or any operational nuances. It is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: a single clear action sentence followed by a short return summary. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It lists key return categories, and the output schema covers structured details. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, but that is implied by the nature of the tool and is not critical when an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents the input (none). The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is required, and the description correctly implies that no inputs are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: "Get Podman system information." It further specifies the scope with "including version, storage, registries, and runtime," which adds concreteness. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling system_df_tool, though that tool is narrower in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of situations where system info is needed, nor any contrast with related tools like system_df_tool. The description simply states what it does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the purpose and does not mention any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the unit does not exist, or any required permissions. The presence of an output schema partially covers return format, but the description itself lacks transparency beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema provided). The description adequately covers the core purpose, and the output schema handles return-value details. It is complete for the task at hand, though it could benefit from slightly more context around when to use it among siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'unit_name', including a description and example. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the status of a Podman container systemd unit.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a Podman container systemd unit'), distinguishing it from siblings like service_start, service_stop, and service_restart which perform different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used to retrieve status for a specific systemd unit, which is clear from the name and description. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like service_list (which may show statuses for all units) or service_logs. No direct exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the primary effect (starting the pod and all its containers) but does not disclose additional behaviors like idempotency, error handling, or whether the command blocks until containers are running. This is a minimal but acceptable disclosure for a straightforward start operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys all essential information without any wasted words. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any nuance about when a pod can be started (e.g., must be created first) or interactions with related tools. Given the availability of sibling tools and the absence of annotations, a more complete description would enhance usability, but the current text covers the core function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with the parameter 'name' described as 'Pod name or ID'. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema. Given the high schema coverage, 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start a pod and all its containers' clearly specifies the verb (start), the resource (pod), and the scope (all containers). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like container_start_tool, which targets individual containers, and pod_stop_tool, which performs the opposite action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you want to start an entire pod with all its containers) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. There is no direct comparison to container_start_tool or any guidance on prerequisites, such as the pod already existing.
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It states 'List processes,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether ps_args can alter command execution, if output is a snapshot, or any permission requirements. It is a safe and predictable function, but lacks deeper transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence: 'List processes running inside a container.' It contains no redundant words or filler, conveys the core function efficiently, and is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. Given the simplicity of the tool (two params, no nested objects) and the clear purpose, the description is adequate. It could be more complete by mentioning that ps_args changes the process listing output or that it is non-interactive, but these are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'name' described as 'Container name or ID' and 'ps_args' as 'Arguments to pass to ps (e.g. "aux")'. The description itself adds no additional parameter context, but since the schema fully defines both parameters, 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List processes running inside a container.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('processes...inside a container'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like container_list_tool (lists containers), container_inspect_tool (inspects details), or container_stats_tool (shows resource usage). The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the tool name and description: use this when you need to see processes within a specific container. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., not for live monitoring, use container_stats for resource usage). No alternative tools are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the destructive action but fails to define what qualifies as 'unused' (e.g., dangling vs. unreferenced) and does not mention any safety implications or side effects beyond the return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. Every word is functional.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless prune tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and return values. However, the ambiguity of 'unused' and lack of any prerequisite or behavioral caveat make it slightly less than complete, though sufficient for an experienced user.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description provides useful return value information (removed IDs and reclaimed space) which adds context beyond the empty schema, though the baseline is already set at 4 for 0-param tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('unused images'), distinguishing it from sibling image_rm_tool which removes specific images. The return value mention adds further clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the term 'unused images' – it should be used to clean up unreferenced images. However, it does not explicitly compare to image_rm_tool or specify when not to use this tool, leaving the guidance at an implied level.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, does not mention any permission requirements, and does not describe error behavior. It is minimally transparent but lacks explicit safety statements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no fluff or redundancy, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. This is an example of efficient, well-structured description text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has fully documented parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The description gives the core purpose and enough context for an agent to differentiate it from container-level log tools. However, it lacks an explicit sibling comparison, which would make it complete for disambiguation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not enhance parameter understanding. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantic load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and the clear resource 'journal logs for a Podman container systemd unit.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like container_logs_tool, which would focus on container stdout/stderr rather than systemd journal logs. The resource is precise enough to select the correct tool among the many service and container tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool operates on systemd journal logs for a unit, implying it is for unit-level logs rather than container-level logs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for container logs, use container_logs_tool' – so it stops short of full 5-point guidance. The context is clear, but not fully explicit.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states that the tool returns disk usage by images, containers, and volumes, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it) or mention any potential side effects or permissions, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the core action and output breakdown. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, earning top marks for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only utility, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating it is safe/read-only, but that is easily inferred. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to describe return structure in detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. The baseline of 4 for no parameters applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Get Podman disk usage') and further clarifies scope by listing what the disk usage covers (images, containers, volumes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on specific entity lifecycle or system info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The tool's purpose is obvious from its name and description, so usage is implied: use this when you need disk usage information. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., system_info_tool) or any exclusions, so it doesn't fully earn a higher score.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context about avoiding conflict with systemd process management, but it does not disclose what happens during the restart (e.g., downtime, whether it blocks until active, or if it reloads systemd). It also does not mention any permission requirements or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise without being under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, full schema coverage, output schema present), the description is fairly complete. It explains the critical systemd context and the reason for this tool's existence. It could mention prerequisites like the unit needing to exist or be enabled, but that is not essential for a basic restart operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes unit_name fully with 100% coverage, including an example. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail beyond repeating 'systemd unit'. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not compensate with additional semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Restart a Podman container systemd unit.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling container_restart_tool by explaining this is the correct systemd-aware approach, avoiding the conflict that direct podman restart would cause.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence explicitly states when to use this tool ('on systems where containers are managed by systemd') and when not to ('Using podman restart directly would conflict'). This provides clear guidance versus the container_restart_tool sibling, even though it does not name that tool explicitly.
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?
The description discloses the action (removing stopped containers) and the return value (list of IDs and reclaimed space), but with no annotations it does not mention that this is a permanent destructive action or irreversible. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but lacks depth about consequences or safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, and the return value is explained in a second concise sentence. No fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and a simple operation, the description is complete. It states the action and the response format, and the output schema covers structured return details. No prerequisites or additional context are needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description adds no param-specific meaning. Baseline is 4 for tools with no parameters, and since the schema is empty and concise, this is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Remove' with the resource 'containers' and clearly scopes it to 'all stopped containers'. This distinguishes it from container_rm_tool (which removes specific containers) and image_prune_tool (which prunes images).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states when to use the tool: to remove all stopped containers in one action. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not conditions, but the scope 'all stopped containers' provides clear context. The lack of exclusions or alternative references keeps it just below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the filtering behavior (ExecStart contains /usr/bin/podman, non-container services excluded) and the return type (list with status). This is transparent and adds value beyond simple 'list' semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, a two-bullet filter criterion, and a returns line. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters and the output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return fields. It fully specifies the filtering logic and the nature of the returned list, making it complete for this simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter guidance, and a baseline of 4 is justified for no-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists systemd units that manage Podman containers, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the ExecStart containing /usr/bin/podman filter and excluding non-container services.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need only Podman-related systemd units. It implies exclusions (non-container services are not shown) but does not explicitly name alternative tools like service_list_tool, so it stops short of full 5.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/crunchtools/mcp-podman'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server