mcp-podman-crunchtools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Pod Inspect Tool

pod_inspect_tool

Read-only

Retrieves detailed configuration and status information for a Podman pod by name or ID, helping verify pod settings and troubleshoot issues.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a pod.

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": "pod_inspect_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Pod name or ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile and an output schema covers the return shape, so the description could add value in other areas (missing-pod behavior, error semantics, scope). It adds none — the single sentence restates what the name and annotations already convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Brevity here reflects missing content rather than tight editing, but structurally it is clean.

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?

With annotations, an output schema, and a fully described single parameter, the minimum facts needed to call the tool are present. Still, for an inspect tool among many siblings, the description does nothing to disambiguate scope or failure behavior.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage ('Pod name or ID'), so the schema fully documents it. The description neither repeats nor enriches this, which matches the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a pod'), which is clearly distinct from pod_list_tool or pod_create_tool. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself against the nearest sibling, container_inspect_tool, or clarify what 'detailed' covers.

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 pod_list_tool (enumerate) or container_inspect_tool (per-container detail). The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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