start_containerStart an existing Docker container by specifying its name or ID. Confirms with the user before executing.
Start 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 idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely non-structured behavior: a human confirmation is required before starting. It does not say what happens if the container is already running or what the call returns, so the added value is modest.
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 with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the confirmation caveat follows. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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, return values need not be explained, annotations cover safety, and the sole parameter is fully documented. The confirmation requirement is captured, but the relationship to sibling lifecycle tools (restart/run) is left unaddressed, leaving a small gap for a 43-tool suite.
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 'container' parameter is fully documented in the schema with format constraints (pattern, minLength). The description adds no naming, ID-format, or resolution semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Start an existing container'), which is clear enough to act on. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling restart_container, which is the tool an agent could most plausibly confuse it with, so it earns 4 rather than 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?
The only guidance is 'Confirm with the person first,' which is an approval instruction rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to choose start_container over restart_container, run_container, or exec_in_container, and no precondition (e.g., the container must be stopped).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.