Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-podman-crunchtools

mcp-podman-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Container List Tool

container_list_tool
Read-only

List Podman containers with optional filters, result limits, and an all-containers view for inspecting container state.

Instructions

List containers.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of containers to return
filtersNoFilter by key/value pairs (e.g. {"name": ["myapp"]})
all_containersNoShow all containers (default shows only running)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description needed to add the non-obvious behavior — chiefly that only running containers are returned unless all_containers is set. That important default is present only in the schema, not the description.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Two words is not conciseness but under-specification — there is no front-loaded eligible content beyond the name. Brevity here costs the agent the information it needs.

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

Completeness2/5

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 needn't be explained, but with 30 sibling tools and three optional parameters, a working description should at least state the running-only default and the filtering capability. Those gaps are real, not minor.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, filters, and all_containers are fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about filter semantics or how limit interacts with pagination.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"List containers" is a verb plus resource, but it essentially restates the tool name (Container List Tool) and adds nothing. It gives no scope, no distinction from sibling list tools (pod_list_tool, image_list_tool, volume_list_tool), and no hint that it defaults to running containers only.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no exclusions. An agent gets no help deciding between this and container_inspect_tool or pod_list_tool from the description text.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools