mcp-podman-crunchtools

by crunchtools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Pod List Tool

pod_list_tool

Read-only

List Podman pods and filter by key/value pairs to inspect workloads across rootful or rootless environments.

Instructions

List pods.

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": "pod_list_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filters`	No	Filter by key/value pairs (e.g. {"name": ["mypod"]})

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description isn't obligated to restate safety. However, it adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether all pods or only running pods are returned, whether results are namespace-scoped, or anything about ordering/pagination behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two words are certainly concise and front-loaded, but the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficiency. A single additional clause on scope or filtering would have earned its place.

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 and annotations cover return values and safety, but the description leaves the core listing semantics (scope, default filter behavior, relationship to pod_inspect_tool) entirely unaddressed. For a tool in a dense sibling cluster, that is a meaningful gap.

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` parameter is documented in the schema with an example, so the description needn't compensate. Baseline 3 applies since the description contributes nothing extra about filtering semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"List pods" gives a clear verb and resource, so the basic action is unambiguous. But it offers no differentiation from sibling list/inspect tools such as pod_inspect_tool or container_list_tool, and does not say what a 'pod list' returns or includes.

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 on when to use this versus pod_inspect_tool or the container listing tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or filtering scope. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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