image_pull_toolPull a container image from a registry into Podman using its reference, enabling image availability for container creation and management.
Pull an image from a registry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | Image reference (e.g. "quay.io/crunchtools/rotv:latest") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a remote fetch, but does not disclose authentication requirements, network access, whether an existing local image is overwritten, or other side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action and source, which is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter pull operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema and fully documented input schema cover return values and parameter mechanics. However, with no annotations, the description should add more behavioral context (e.g., auth, overwrite behavior) to be fully complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single required parameter 'reference' is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Pull) and resource (image) with source (registry). It is clear and distinct from sibling image_list, image_inspect, image_rm, and image_prune tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from them in the text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only states what the tool does. There is no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like image_list or image_inspect, no prerequisites such as registry authentication, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.