mcp-podman-crunchtools

by crunchtools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Pod Rm Tool

pod_rm_tool

Remove a pod and all its containers by specifying the pod name or ID, optionally forcing removal of running pods.

Instructions

Remove a pod and all its containers.

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_rm_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Pod name or ID
`force`	No	Force removal of running pod

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one valuable behavioral trait beyond the schema: removal cascades to all containers in the pod. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, behavior on running pods, or what the force flag changes operationally.

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 tight sentence with the key cascade behavior front-loaded. No wasted words, though it is arguably thin given the tool is destructive.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the cascade behavior is captured. But for a destructive, annotation-free tool, the absence of any guidance on running pods, force semantics, or irreversibility leaves real gaps.

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%, so both parameters (name, force) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Remove) and resource (pod), plus the important scope detail that all its containers go with it. This implicitly separates it from pod_stop/pod_restart, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative tools (pod_stop, pod_restart, container_rm). The agent must infer that this is the destructive variant from the verb alone.

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