Lists image update risk scores (0–100) and risk levels for Docker/Kubernetes containers, optionally filtered by container ID, to help prioritize updates. Requires Personal edition.
List image update risk scores per container (0-100) with their risk level. Requires the Personal edition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| container_id | No | Internal container ID; omit to list all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about edition availability and the score/risk-level shape, but it does not discuss pagination, ordering, empty-result behavior, or rate limits.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no wasted phrasing. The primary action and return shape are front-loaded, followed by the edition requirement.
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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers what is listed, score range, risk level, and edition requirement. Minor gaps remain around result ordering or pagination, but the core invocation information is present.
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 optional container_id parameter is already documented as omitting to list all. The description's phrase 'per container' aligns with the schema but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 names a specific verb and resource: list image update risk scores per container, and it states the score range and accompanying risk level. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list/get tools beyond the unique risk-score subject.
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?
Usage is implied by the list-risk-scores purpose, and the description adds a meaningful prerequisite: it requires the Personal edition. However, it does not say when to choose this over related security or CVE listing tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.