dpanel_container_commitCommit a Docker container to a new image, preserving its current filesystem and configuration for reuse, debugging, or deployment.
将容器提交为新镜像。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| md5 | Yes | ||
| option | 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, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare purpose. It does not say whether this mutates state, what permissions are required, whether the source container keeps running, or where the resulting image lands.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no structural content that earns its place beyond the bare purpose.
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 not be described, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and two fully undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin. It omits the container identifier semantics of 'md5' and the payload shape of 'option'.
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 both parameters are opaque: 'md5' is undocumented and 'option' is a free-form object with no explanation. The description adds no meaning to either parameter, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call.
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: committing a container into a new image. An agent can understand the basic operation, though it does not distinguish this from nearby siblings like dpanel_container_copy, dpanel_container_export, or the dpanel_image_build_* tools.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as dpanel_container_copy or export. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.