pod_create_toolCreate a Podman pod by specifying a name and optionally an infra container, shared namespaces, and labels.
Create a new pod.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Pod name | |
| infra | No | Create an infra container (default: True) | |
| share | No | Namespaces to share (ipc, net, uts, pid) | |
| labels | No | Pod labels |
| 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, and it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. For a mutation tool it omits whether the pod is started on creation, what happens on name conflicts, required privileges, or whether the operation is reversible.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is so terse that it under-specifies a four-parameter mutation. Brevity here costs usefulness rather than demonstrating discipline.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the description still omits creation semantics that matter for a pod: default behavior, post-create state, and relationships to the many sibling pod lifecycle tools. It is inadequate for the complexity implied by the tool set.
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%, so every parameter (name, infra, share, labels) is already documented in the schema, and the description adds no additional meaning. A baseline 3 is appropriate 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a clear verb (Create) and resource (pod), making the operation immediately identifiable. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from sibling creation tools like container_create_tool or address how it relates to pod_start_tool, which is the natural follow-up.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Nothing tells the agent whether a created pod is started, whether pod_start_tool must be called afterward, or what to do if a pod with the same name exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.