Skip to main content
Glama
jankowtf

MCP Server Template for Cursor IDE

by jankowtf

apply_prompt_docker

Generate Docker container configuration templates for containerization objectives using prompt-based templates in Cursor IDE.

Instructions

Provides a prompt template for Docker container configurations and orchestration

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
containerization_objectiveYesDescription of the containerization objective
specific_instructionsNoOptional specific instructions about containerization requirements
versionNoThe version of the prompt template to use (e.g., '1.0.0', '1.1.0', or 'latest')

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function for the 'apply_prompt_docker' tool. It renders and returns a Docker-specific prompt template based on the containerization objective, specific instructions, and version.
    async def apply_prompt_docker(
        containerization_objective: str,
        specific_instructions: str = "",
        version: str = "latest",
    ) -> list[types.TextContent]:
        """
        Provides a prompt template for Docker container configurations and orchestration.
    
        Args:
            containerization_objective: Description of the containerization objective.
            specific_instructions: Optional specific instructions about containerization requirements.
            version: The version of the prompt template to use. Defaults to "latest".
    
        Returns:
            A list containing a TextContent object with the prompt.
        """
        # Render the prompt template with the containerization objective and specific instructions
        response_text = render_prompt_template(
            "docker",
            version_str=version,
            objective=containerization_objective,
            specific_instructions=specific_instructions,
        )
        return [types.TextContent(type="text", text=response_text)]
  • The tool registration in the list_tools() function, which defines the tool's name, description, and input schema for validation.
    types.Tool(
        name="apply_prompt_docker",
        description="Provides a prompt template for Docker container configurations and orchestration",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "required": ["containerization_objective"],
            "properties": {
                "containerization_objective": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "Description of the containerization objective",
                },
                "specific_instructions": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "Optional specific instructions about containerization requirements",
                },
                "version": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "The version of the prompt template to use (e.g., '1.0.0', '1.1.0', or 'latest')",
                },
            },
        },
    ),
  • Dispatch and input validation logic within the main @app.call_tool() handler that invokes the apply_prompt_docker function.
    elif name == "apply_prompt_docker":
        if "containerization_objective" not in arguments:
            return [
                types.TextContent(
                    type="text",
                    text="Error: Missing required argument 'containerization_objective'",
                )
            ]
        version = arguments.get("version", "latest")
        specific_instructions = arguments.get("specific_instructions", "")
        return await apply_prompt_docker(
            containerization_objective=arguments["containerization_objective"],
            specific_instructions=specific_instructions,
            version=version,
        )
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level ('provides a prompt template') without detailing how it behaves—e.g., whether it generates new content, retrieves existing templates, requires specific permissions, has side effects like saving data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core function, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's domain and output.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and the description lacks behavioral details, it's incomplete for effective use. The description covers the basic purpose but fails to address key aspects like what the tool returns (prompt templates in what format?), any dependencies, or error handling. For a 3-parameter tool in a set of similar siblings, more context is needed to guide the agent adequately.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The baseline is 3 because the schema adequately documents the parameters, and the description doesn't compensate or add extra meaning (e.g., explaining how 'containerization_objective' influences the template or what 'version' options imply).

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool 'provides a prompt template for Docker container configurations and orchestration', which gives a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions the resource (prompt template) and domain (Docker), but the verb 'provides' is vague—it doesn't clarify if it generates, retrieves, or applies templates. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'apply_prompt_infra' or 'apply_prompt_initial', which likely serve similar prompt-related functions in different contexts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for application. Given the sibling tools include various 'apply_prompt_' variants for different purposes (e.g., change, fix, infra), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage cues, relying solely on the tool name for context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jankowtf/mcp-hitchcode'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server