dpanel_container_listList Docker containers with status, image, name, and network, and filter by container ID or site title. Returns the full unpaginated list for inspecting container state before managing or debugging.
容器列表（含状态、镜像、名称、网络）。可按 md5（容器ID）或站点名过滤。注意：API 不分页，返回全量。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| md5 | No | ||
| site_title | 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 full disclosure burden. It does add a genuinely useful trait — the API is unpaginated and returns the full set — but omits anything about read-only safety, permissions, or result size implications for large hosts.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: what is returned, how to filter, and the pagination caveat. Front-loaded and free of padding.
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-value detail is not strictly required, and the description still summarizes returned fields. The combination of the pagination note and filter semantics makes it largely sufficient for a read-only list tool, with minor gaps around filter interaction.
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, and it does: it explains that md5 is the container ID and site_title is a site-name filter. It still doesn't clarify defaults, requiredness, or filter combination behavior, but the core semantics of both params are conveyed.
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+resource (container list) and enumerates the fields returned (status, image, name, network), which cleanly separates it from dpanel_container_detail and dpanel_container_stat. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
It gives filter conditions (by md5/container ID or site name) and a behavioral caveat about pagination, which implies how to call it. However, it never states when to prefer this over dpanel_container_detail or dpanel_network_container_list, nor what happens when both filters are supplied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.