dpanel_container_copyCopy a Docker container by providing its MD5 and a new container name, creating a duplicate in the DPanel environment.
复制容器。copy_name 为新容器名。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| md5 | Yes | ||
| copy_name | 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 mutation itself. It does not say whether the source container must be stopped, whether volumes/network config are duplicated, what permissions are required, or that a new container ID results.
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?
Two short sentences with the key parameter fact front-loaded, so there is no waste. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, given a mutation tool with no annotations.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. Still, for an unannotated, destructive/mutating tool with two required opaque parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unsaid for reliable invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies that copy_name is the new container's name, but leaves md5 completely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether it identifies the source container or is a hash of something else.
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 ('复制容器' / copy container), so the agent knows this duplicates a container. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as dpanel_container_commit or dpanel_container_export, which also produce derived artifacts from a container.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (commit, export, create). The agent must infer that this duplicates an existing container rather than creating one from an image.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.