mcp-podman-crunchtools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Container Top Tool

container_top_tool

List running processes inside a Podman container by name or ID to inspect activity. Pass optional ps arguments for detailed output.

Instructions

List processes running inside 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_top_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Container name or ID
`ps_args`	No	Arguments to pass to ps (e.g. "aux")

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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. A 'list processes' tool is implicitly read-only and non-destructive, but the description omits whether the container must be running, whether a stopped container errors, and how ps_args changes behavior. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place and the core action leads.

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 explained, and the parameter set is simple and fully documented in the schema. However, with no annotations the description should at least address the running-container precondition and the effect of ps_args on output.

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%: both `name` (container name or ID) and `ps_args` (arguments to ps, e.g. "aux") are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (processes inside a container), which cleanly separates it from container_list_tool (containers) and container_logs_tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with container_stats_tool, but the scope 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 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 over alternatives such as container_stats_tool or container_inspect_tool, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer usage from the purpose sentence alone.

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