dpanel_network_connectAttach a Docker container to a specified network so it can communicate with other containers and services.
将容器接入网络。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| container_name | 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a linking/mutation operation but says nothing about idempotency, required permissions, side effects, or what happens if the container is already connected to the network.
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?
The single short sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. However, it is under-specified for a two-required-parameter mutation operation, so it is concise but not appropriately sized for the information an agent needs.
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 described. But with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the one-line description leaves key behavioral and parameter details missing for a tool that connects a container to a network.
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 both parameters are required. The description only implies the roles of the two parameters (container and network) but never explicitly defines that 'name' is the network identifier or provides format or constraint details, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 (接入/connect) and resource (容器/container to 网络/network). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as dpanel_network_disconnect or dpanel_network_container_list.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like dpanel_network_disconnect. Usage is only implied by the tool name, with no explicit context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.