dpanel_container_upgrade_checkCheck if a Docker container's image has a newer version using its container ID. Identify available updates before upgrading.
检查单个容器镜像更新。container_id 为容器 ID。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| container_id | 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. It implies a non-mutating check, but says nothing about required permissions, whether it contacts a registry, latency, or rate limits. An output schema exists, which covers return values, but the operational profile is undisclosed.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence is a near-tautology that consumes half the description without adding information. Every sentence should earn its place; this one does not.
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, and the tool is a simple one-parameter read. However, the description leaves usage context, the sibling relationship, and parameter format entirely uncovered, which is thin even for a simple tool.
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 single parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description's 'container_id 为容器 ID' merely restates the parameter name and adds no format, source, or accepted-value information (e.g., ID vs. name). It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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: check whether a single container's image has an update. The word '单个' (single) implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling dpanel_container_upgrade_list, though it never names that alternative. Clear enough for an agent to identify the action.
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 the closely related siblings dpanel_container_upgrade_list (list all) or dpanel_container_upgrade (perform the upgrade). The agent must infer the position of this tool in the upgrade workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.