list_networksRetrieve Docker networks with their ID, name, driver, and scope to inspect available container networks before connecting or troubleshooting services.
List Docker networks: id, name, driver and scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| networks | 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 without description help. The description adds the field set but says nothing about volume (all networks vs. running only), ordering, or pagination behavior beyond what the output schema provides. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and a compact field list; no sentence is wasted.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile; the definition is sufficient for a zero-parameter read tool. Minor missing context is whether filtering or scoping exists at all.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies per the rules. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is none to add.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List Docker networks') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like inspect_network or list_containers, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: a zero-parameter list tool with nothing to configure means 'call it to enumerate networks'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to inspect_network for per-network detail, so guidance is only inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.