dpanel_image_build_detailRetrieve detailed information about a specific Docker image build task by its ID. Use to inspect build status, logs, or results within DPanel environments.
镜像构建任务详情。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, yet it discloses nothing about authentication, permissions, pagination, or failure behavior. The only hint that this is a read is the word 'detail,' which is not enough for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. A single fragment that repeats the title earns no credit for conciseness.
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?
Output schema presence means return values need not be described, but the definition still fails to explain the id's meaning or when to prefer this over the many sibling detail/list tools. For a build-task detail endpoint it is minimally inadequate.
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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the schema does not explain what the id refers to. The description likewise says nothing about the id, leaving the caller to guess whether it is a build id, image id, or task id.
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 is a bare noun phrase, '镜像构建任务详情,' that essentially restates the tool title 'Dpanel Image Build Detail'. It conveys the resource (image build task) but no verb or scope, and does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like dpanel_image_build_list or dpanel_image_detail.
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 guidance whatsoever on when to call this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from dpanel_image_build_list or dpanel_image_detail. An agent gets no routing signal from the text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.