mcp-podman-crunchtools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Container Inspect Tool

container_inspect_tool

Read-only

Retrieve detailed configuration, state, and metadata for a Podman container by name or ID to diagnose issues and verify runtime settings.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a container.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "container_inspect_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Container name or ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's only added value would be context such as whether the container must exist/running or what the detail payload covers. It provides none of that, effectively restating the read-only nature the annotation already declares.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient but sits close to the edge of under-specification for a tool in a 30-sibling cluster.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the one-parameter input is fully documented. Still, for an inspect call the description should say whether a stopped container is inspectable and how it differs from container_top_tool or container_stats_tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'name' parameter is documented as 'Container name or ID', so the description adds nothing further. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a container'), which clearly separates it from container_list_tool's summary listing. It stops short of naming any sibling or scope boundary explicitly, so differentiation relies on the reader's inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives in a crowded sibling set (container_logs_tool, container_stats_tool, container_top_tool all reveal different views of the same container). The agent must infer that 'inspect' follows 'list'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.