Permanently delete a container by name. Provide the container's name to remove it from the host system.
Delete a container permanently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'permanently', which conveys irreversibility beyond the generic destructive hint. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether related data or configuration is removed) or any prerequisites, so it adds only marginal value over annotations.
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 description is a single five-word sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and object. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though it could have included parameter clarification without becoming verbose.
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?
Despite the tool being simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete for reliable invocation because it does not clarify what value 'name' expects. Annotations cover the destructive behavior, but the agent is left to guess the parameter semantics, which is a significant gap even for a simple 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?
The schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'name' parameter at all. It is unclear whether 'name' refers to a container name, ID, or a label, and there is no guidance on format or how to obtain valid values. The description fails to 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Delete'), resource ('a container'), and scope ('permanently'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_container or restart_container. It also contrasts with file deletion tools like delete_path, making the target resource unambiguous.
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 provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference alternatives like gatekeeper_stop_container or gatekeeper_restart_container, nor does it clarify that this is the irreversible removal option versus a temporary stop. The word 'permanently' hints at intent but does not explicitly guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.