docker-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Server info

server_info

Read-only

Retrieve this Docker MCP server's name, version, mode, areas, confirmation settings, lab and data folders, and Docker availability without exposing secrets.

Instructions

Show this server's name, version, mode (read, lab or full) and areas, who confirms removals and dangerous options, its labs and data folders, and whether Docker is there. Contains no secrets.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	Yes	read: only reads; lab: only labs, under a safety policy; full: everything
`name`	Yes
`node`	Yes
`areas`	Yes
`confirm`	Yes	Who confirms removals and dangerous options: server (it asks the person) or client (the app asks before each call)
`dataDir`	Yes	Where it keeps its state and caches
`labsDir`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`requirements`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.0Oct 29, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / confirm

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Who confirms removals and dangerous options: server (it asks the person) or client (the app asks before each call)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "version",
-  "mode",
-  "areas",
-  "labsDir",
-  "dataDir",
-  "node"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "version",
+  "mode",
+  "areas",
+  "confirm",
+  "labsDir",
+  "dataDir",
+  "node"
+]

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it discloses the fields returned, notes that it includes configuration around confirmations and dangerous options, and explicitly says it contains no secrets.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every listed item maps to the tool's returned server metadata.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool is a simple read-only, parameterless server-info operation, has an output schema, and has readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is complete enough for correct selection and invocation. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers them.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are no parameters, so parameter semantics are largely irrelevant. The schema is empty and the description does not need to compensate; baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Show") and resource ("this server's name, version, mode...") and enumerates the exact metadata returned. This clearly distinguishes server_info from sibling docker_info and other Docker/lab tools.

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?

The description implies this is the tool for inspecting server identity and configuration, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of alternatives such as docker_info or check_requirements. Usage is inferable from the listed contents rather than stated.

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