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

mcp-podman-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Container Rm Tool

container_rm_tool

Remove a Podman container by name or ID, with optional force for running containers and volume cleanup.

Instructions

Remove 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_rm_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesContainer name or ID
forceNoForce removal of running container
volumesNoRemove associated anonymous volumes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the bare action. It does not mention that this is destructive/irreversible, what force and volumes do behaviorally, or any permission requirements.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. There is no waste, but there is also almost no content.

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 need not be explained. Still, for a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, the description should cover safety behavior and prerequisites; 'Remove a container.' leaves an agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 name, force, and volumes are already documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb (remove) and resource (container), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings such as container_prune_tool or pod_rm_tool, leaving the agent to infer which removal tool applies.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like container_prune_tool (bulk removal) or image_rm_tool. No prerequisites are stated, e.g. whether the container must be stopped first.

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