tag_imageAssign a new name:tag to an existing Docker image without copying it; confirm with the user before applying.
Give an image another name and tag (the image itself isn't copied). Confirm with the person first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | The new name:tag | |
| image | Yes | The image's name or id, as its list gives it |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | ||
| image | 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 non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds genuinely new context by stating the image itself isn't copied (metadata-only) and prompting confirmation. It doesn't state permissions or what a re-tag replaces, so not a 5.
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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and ending on the one operational caveat. Nothing is 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 annotations and an output schema covering return shape and safety, the description supplies the key semantic point (no copy) plus a confirmation prompt. Sufficient for a simple 2-param operation, though permission/overwrite behavior is left implicit.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax beyond loosely mapping 'name and tag' to them. 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 ('tag'/'give another name') and resource ('image'), and clarifies the operation is metadata-only, not a copy. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like copy_to_container or build_image, though it names no alternative directly.
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 usage guidance is 'Confirm with the person first,' a workflow caveat rather than a when-to-use-vs-alternatives statement. There is no direct tagging sibling to contrast against, so implied usage is adequate but thin.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.