Lists all Docker networks managed by a 1Panel server so you can inspect available networks before connecting containers or troubleshooting connectivity.
List networks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no return format, no pagination behavior, no permissions, no indication whether this is a read-only or mutating operation beyond the ambiguous word 'list'.
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 words is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than economy — the brevity leaves the agent with nothing beyond the name, which is a structural failure rather than concision.
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?
For a simple zero-param list tool the description could still be complete with a short clarification of what networks are returned and in what shape. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent has no way to know what the call returns.
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 and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. Per the rubric, zero params yields a baseline of 4.
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?
The description 'List networks' simply restates the tool name list_networks, decomposing it into verb+resource without adding any qualifying information. It does not clarify which networks (Docker networks, presumably, given siblings like create_network/remove_network) or the scope of the listing.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given, and the obvious alternatives (create_network, remove_network) are not mentioned. The verb 'list' weakly implies a non-mutating read, but nothing about context or exclusions is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.