Skip to main content
Glama

plan_docker_image_application

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a Docker image application request before creation by checking project, environment, server, destination, and duplicate names—without writing any changes.

Instructions

Validate a Docker Image application and show its creation request without writing. Checks project/environment, server/destination, and duplicate names. Git sources support Nixpacks, Railpack, static, Dockerfile, and Docker Compose builds.

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": {
      "project_uuid": "<project_uuid>",
      "server_uuid": "<server_uuid>",
      "environment_uuid": "<environment_uuid>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "docker_registry_image_name": "<docker_registry_image_name>",
      "docker_registry_image_tag": "<docker_registry_image_tag>"
    },
    "name": "plan_docker_image_application"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
domainsNo
redirectNoboth
server_uuidYes
project_uuidYes
ports_exposesNo80
destination_uuidNo
environment_uuidYes
autogenerate_domainNo
health_check_enabledNo
docker_registry_image_tagYes
docker_registry_image_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so "without writing" is partly redundant, but the description adds real value by enumerating what is validated: project/environment, server/destination, and duplicate names. It still doesn't say what the returned "creation request" payload looks like or how validation failures are surfaced.

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?

The first two sentences are well front-loaded and earn their place. The third sentence about Git sources and Nixpacks/Railpack/Dockerfile builds is noise here — this tool takes a registry image, has no repository or build-pack parameter, and the sentence invites a wrong mental model.

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?

For a 12-parameter dry-run with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much unsaid about inputs and about the shape of the returned creation request. The irrelevant Git-build sentence further reduces confidence about what this tool actually accepts.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. The validation checks hint at project_uuid/environment_uuid/server_uuid/destination_uuid/name, but nothing explains docker_registry_image_name/tag, domains, redirect, ports_exposes, autogenerate_domain, or health_check_enabled.

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+resource pair ("Validate a Docker Image application") and the key differentiator from its create_* sibling ("without writing"). It does not name create_docker_image_application or the other plan_* variants explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing from the dry-run phrasing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Show its creation request without writing" strongly implies a pre-flight use before create_docker_image_application, but that alternative is never named and no when-not conditions are given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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