restart_containerRestart an existing Docker container by name or ID after user confirmation to recover stopped or unhealthy services.
Restart an existing container. Confirm with the person first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| container | Yes | The container's name or id, as its list gives it |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | ||
| container | 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 readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a meaningful behavioral requirement not captured by annotations: human confirmation before performing the restart, plus the implication that the container must already exist.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the confirmation requirement. Every element earns its place with no filler.
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?
The tool is simple (one fully documented parameter, output schema exists, annotations cover safety traits). The description supplies the key behavioral extra (confirmation) and is sufficient for correct invocation, though minor operational details like downtime or behavior on stopped containers are absent.
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 sole parameter 'container' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Restart an existing container'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like start_container and stop_container. However, it does not explicitly name or compare against those alternatives, so it falls short of the sibling differentiation seen in top-scoring examples.
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?
The description includes a precondition ('Confirm with the person first'), which is useful, but it provides no guidance on when to choose restart over alternatives like stop_container + start_container or start_container alone. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.