dpanel_image_detailRetrieve Docker image details such as size, tags, and creation date using its sha256 digest. Use it to inspect a specific image in DPanel.
镜像详情。md5 为镜像 sha256 digest（如 sha256:abc123...）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| md5 | 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, and it discloses almost nothing: not that this is read-only, not that auth is required, not what happens if the digest doesn't exist. Only the digest format is clarified.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the parameter clarification. No waste, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral detail rather than being purely efficient.
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 explanation is correctly omitted, and the parameter is well covered. However, with zero annotations and no output-schema-adjacent behavioral notes, the definition leaves gaps about read-only nature and error conditions for a simple detail 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 lone parameter is just typed as string, so the description is doing real work by explaining that md5 is actually an image sha256 digest and giving a concrete format example. This meaningfully compensates for the schema 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+resource (镜像详情 = image detail) that cleanly distinguishes it from dpanel_image_list and dpanel_image_delete in the sibling set. It is terse but unambiguous about what the tool returns: details for one image.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance. It never states that this should be used after obtaining a digest from dpanel_image_list, nor any prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.