docker-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create a network

create_network

Creates a Docker network for container communication. Set it as internal to block outside access; confirm with the user first.

Instructions

Create a network, internal if it shouldn't reach the outside. Confirm with the person first.

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": "create_network"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`internal`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`created`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description adds context annotations don't carry: the semantic meaning of internal (no outside reachability) and a human-confirmation requirement before execution.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key conditional and the confirmation caveat. No filler, though the terseness is partly why other dimensions have gaps.

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 needn't be described, and complexity is low (2 params). Still, the description omits naming constraints, duplicate-name behavior, and any pointer to sibling network tools, leaving it minimally adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantic intent of the 'internal' flag but says nothing about the 'name' pattern/constraints or the default of internal; partial compensation for two undocumented parameters.

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 and resource ('Create a network'), so an agent can distinguish it from create_volume or run_container by resource alone. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as list_networks or remove_network, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives one conditional hint ('internal if it shouldn't reach the outside') and one precondition ('Confirm with the person first'), which is genuine usage guidance. But it names no alternatives and no when-not-to-use case, leaving the agent to infer when create vs. inspect/list is appropriate.

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