dpanel_env_listList all Docker environments available in DPanel, including the current environment, to help choose a target host for subsequent operations.
列出 Docker 环境（多主机），含当前环境。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 adds one useful behavioral fact (the result includes the current environment), but does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor anything about ordering or result size — though the presence of an output schema softens the return-value gap.
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 the scope parenthetical front-loaded. Zero waste, though it is arguably terse enough that a bit more context would still have earned its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema that defines return values, the description covers what the tool returns (the set of Docker environments) clearly enough to call it correctly. The only omission is a declaration of read-only safety, which no annotation supplies.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are missing or misrepresented.
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 (列出/list) and resource (Docker 环境), and adds scope detail that the current environment is included. The plural/list framing distinguishes it from dpanel_env_detail, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied — enumerate environments — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. It does not point to dpanel_env_detail for inspection or dpanel_env_switch for changing the current env, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.