dpanel_image_import_by_image_tarImport a Docker image from a tar file stored in DPanel's storage directory. This tool enables AI agents to load images into Docker environments without manual file handling.
导入镜像 tar（从 DPanel 存储目录）。
| 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 behavioral burden and does not. It does not say whether this is an irreversible write, whether it overwrites existing images, what happens on conflicting tags, what errors can occur, or what the output (despite an output schema existing) represents at a high level.
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 action front-loaded and the source qualifier in parentheses. No filler, no redundancy.
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?
With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and a zero-parameter tool is simple. Still, a write operation with no annotations should disclose at least basic safety/reversibility context; the description leaves an agent unsure when this is appropriate versus other image-import routes.
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?
Zero parameters, so the schema needs no parameter documentation and the baseline is 4. The parenthetical 'from DPanel storage directory' usefully constrains the input source, which is the only semantic content an agent needs here.
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: importing an image tar from the DPanel storage directory. Distinguishes from image-creation siblings like dpanel_image_build_* or dpanel_image_list by naming the tar-import path, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead.
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 does not clarify how this differs from dpanel_explorer_import, dpanel_image_build_create, or where the tar must come from beyond 'DPanel storage directory'. An agent has to infer the invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.