dpanel_container_statusControl Docker container lifecycle by starting, stopping, restarting, pausing, or unpausing via DPanel. Requires container MD5 and operation.
容器生命周期控制：operate ∈ start|stop|restart|pause|unpause。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| md5 | Yes | ||
| operate | 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 burden. It does not disclose that these are mutating operations, whether they are reversible, what happens to a paused container, permission requirements, or what the output schema reports. The lifecycle verbs hint at mutation but nothing is stated.
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 no filler, and the operation set is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it omits any mention of the container identifier the caller must supply.
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 explained. But for a mutating tool with zero annotations and an undocumented required identifier, the definition leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently against the many sibling container tools.
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 the schema declares no enum for 'operate', so the description's enumeration of start|stop|restart|pause|unpause is a real and necessary addition. The required 'md5' parameter (the container identifier) is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so coverage is only partial.
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 (lifecycle control) and resource (container) and enumerates the operations, which is genuinely informative. However it conflicts with the tool name and title 'container_status', which implies a read-only status query — an agent scanning names would not expect start/stop/restart semantics here. It also does not differentiate from sibling dpanel_compose_container_ctrl.
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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no routing away from the closely related dpanel_compose_container_ctrl sibling. The operate enum implies context but the agent is left to infer that this is the single-container control path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.