dpanel_compose_container_ctrlControl Docker Compose projects with start, stop, restart, pause, unpause, and list operations. Manage multi-container application lifecycles via DPanel.
Compose 项目控制：op ∈ start|stop|restart|pause|unpause|ls。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| op | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does reveal the mutation verbs (start/stop/restart/pause/unpause) versus the read op (ls), which is useful, but it says nothing about permissions required, whether stop/restart disrupt running containers, side effects, or reversibility.
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?
A single short sentence with zero filler and the operation vocabulary front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it omits necessary context rather than being ideally sized.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the op set is documented. However, the meaning of 'id' is missing and there is no routing guidance against the many overlapping compose siblings, leaving the definition only minimally viable for a 2-parameter lifecycle-control tool.
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 0% and there are no enums in the schema, so the description must compensate. It fully enumerates the valid op values, which is real added meaning, but the required 'id' parameter is never explained — an agent must guess whether it is a project name, project ID, or container ID.
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 (Compose project control) and enumerates the exact operations, so an agent knows this operates on a Compose project's containers. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like dpanel_compose_list, dpanel_compose_deploy, or dpanel_compose_destroy, which overlap in scope.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The op list implies usage (lifecycle control vs. inspection), but nothing tells the agent how this differs from dpanel_compose_list for listing or dpanel_compose_destroy for teardown, nor what preconditions apply (e.g., the project must exist/deployed).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.