dpanel_network_listLists all Docker networks in a DPanel environment, enabling AI agents to inspect and reference available networks for container and compose management.
网络列表。
| 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 it discloses almost nothing. "列表" loosely implies a read-only enumeration, but there is no mention of pagination, filtering, or whether the result is scoped to the current environment.
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 sentence is short but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. A single vague noun phrase with a period earns no credit for being front-loaded.
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 explained, but the description still omits scope, environment context, and sibling differentiation for a tool sitting in a large family of network operations.
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 clarify; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and additionalProperties is false, leaving no ambiguity.
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 "网络列表。" merely restates the tool name and title (dpanel_network_list) without adding a verb-resource pairing or scope. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as dpanel_network_detail, dpanel_network_container_list, or dpanel_network_prune.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the unfiltered listing entry point versus dpanel_network_detail for a single network.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.