dpanel_container_check_portChecks whether a host port is occupied, helping AI agents avoid port conflicts when deploying or configuring Docker containers and compose projects through DPanel.
检查主机端口占用情况。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No |
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '检查' implies a read-only check, but the description does not state permissions, side effects, or whether any state is changed.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity leaves essential usage and parameter details unstated.
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?
Given the tool has one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is too thin. The output schema covers return values, but usage context and parameter meaning remain incomplete.
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 schema has one port parameter with no description and a default of 0, and schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions '端口' generally but does not explain what the parameter accepts or what default 0 means.
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 states a specific verb and resource: checking host port occupancy. It is clear enough to distinguish from most container lifecycle siblings, though it does not explicitly connect the tool to the container management context implied by its name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives exist. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.