mcp-podman-crunchtools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Network List Tool

network_list_tool

Read-only

Lists Podman networks with optional key/value filters, helping you inspect available container networks before connecting pods or containers.

Instructions

List networks.

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": "network_list_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filters`	No	Filter by key/value pairs

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no note on whether all networks are returned by default, how the filters argument narrows results, or any pagination/ordering behavior. It is a pure restatement, adding zero behavioral context.

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 here, it is under-specification. Nothing is wrong with the sentence itself, but it is too short to be informative and there is nothing to front-load because no substance exists.

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, but for a listing tool with a free-form filters object, the description should say what filtering keys are supported or that it defaults to all networks. As written, the agent has to guess at scope and filter semantics.

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% and the single optional 'filters' param is documented in the schema as "Filter by key/value pairs". The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies rather than anything higher.

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 networks" states a verb and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name (network_list_tool) and title (Network List Tool). It does nothing to distinguish this tool from the sibling network_inspect_tool, so an agent gains no discriminating information.

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 guidance about when to call this versus network_inspect_tool, which is the obvious alternative for network-related queries. No prerequisites, no note about scope (all networks vs. filtered), no exclusions.

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