inspect_volumeRetrieves a Docker volume's driver, mount point, labels, and creation time using its name or ID, so you can verify storage configuration.
A volume's details: driver, mount point, labels and when it was created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| volume | Yes | The volume's name or id, as its list gives it |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| details | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content preview (driver, mount point, labels, creation time), which is useful context, but says nothing about failure behavior for a missing volume or whether the volume must exist locally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it leans toward under-specification rather than tight phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return fields in depth, and annotations cover the read-only nature. With the single required parameter fully documented, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the missing sibling contrast keeps it from being complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'volume' parameter is documented in-schema as 'name or id, as its list gives it', so the structured field carries the load. The description adds no format, aliasing, or resolution detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the resource (a volume) and enumerates what the result contains: driver, mount point, labels, created time. Combined with the title 'Inspect a volume', an agent can distinguish it from list_volumes, create_volume, and remove_volume. However it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it never explicitly frames itself as the detail-lookup counterpart to list_volumes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the word 'details' that this is the single-volume drill-down after list_volumes, and nothing tells it whether a stopped/absent volume is acceptable input.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.