mcp-server-docker

by ofershap

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific Docker operations: logs, stats, exec, listing containers/images, removal, restart, start, and stop. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools, as each handles a unique action on a well-defined resource.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., list_containers, remove_image, start_container). The naming is predictable and uniform across all tools, making them easily readable and systematic.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for Docker management, covering essential operations like lifecycle control (start, stop, restart), inspection (logs, stats, list), and cleanup (remove). Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides strong coverage for core Docker workflows, including CRUD-like operations for containers and images. A minor gap exists in creating or building images (e.g., build_image or pull_image), but agents can still perform most common tasks effectively with the available tools.
Average 3.2/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get logs' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it streams or returns static output, rate limits, or what happens with invalid container IDs. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information ('Get logs from a Docker container'). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the logs are returned in (e.g., text, JSON), whether it includes timestamps, or how errors are handled. Given the lack of structured fields, more descriptive context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('id' and 'tail') with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but the schema provides adequate documentation, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get logs') and resource ('from a Docker container'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'container_stats' or 'exec_command' which also interact with containers but serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_containers' (for discovery) and 'exec_command' (for executing commands), there's no indication that this tool is specifically for retrieving log output rather than other container operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it implies a mutation operation ('execute'), it doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if commands run with container user privileges, potential security implications, error handling for invalid commands, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that executes arbitrary commands.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a command execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address security implications, error conditions, output handling, or execution context. For a tool that can run arbitrary commands in containers, more behavioral context is needed to use it safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify command execution context, shell vs. exec format, or environment variables). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('execute a command') and target ('inside a running Docker container'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'container_logs' or 'container_stats' which also interact with containers but serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the container must be running), exclusions (e.g., not for stopped containers), or comparisons with sibling tools like 'container_logs' (for viewing output) or 'restart_container' (for container management).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Restart' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens to running processes, or potential side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling alternatives, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral implications, usage context relative to other container tools, or what to expect from the operation. Given the complexity of container management, more guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Container ID or name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restart') and target resource ('a Docker container'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'stop_container' and 'start_container' which could be used in sequence for similar effect, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop_container' followed by 'start_container', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., container must be running) or exclusions. With multiple sibling container management tools, this lack of comparative context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain what 'stop' entails (e.g., graceful shutdown vs. force, state persistence, error handling, or permissions required). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a destructive operation (stopping a container) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use in a Docker management context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Container ID or name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and resource ('a running Docker container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'restart_container' or 'remove_container' beyond the basic verb, missing an opportunity to clarify its specific role in the container lifecycle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'restart_container' or 'remove_container'. The description assumes the agent knows the context of stopping versus other container operations, offering no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for a running container.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 mentions the 'all' parameter behavior but doesn't describe other important traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of container IDs/names), if there are rate limits, or if specific permissions are required. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that directly address the tool's function and key parameter. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main purpose. There's zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of container objects with properties), behavioral constraints, or error conditions. For a tool in a Docker management context with multiple siblings, more guidance on output and usage context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter ('all'). The description adds minimal value by restating the parameter's effect ('include stopped containers'), which is essentially what the schema description says. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Docker containers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_images' by specifying containers rather than images, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other container-related tools like 'container_stats' or 'container_logs'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by mentioning the 'all' parameter to include stopped containers, suggesting this tool is for viewing container status. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'container_stats' for performance metrics or 'container_logs' for logs, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose traits like whether it's read-only, how results are formatted (e.g., list vs. detailed view), potential errors, or performance considerations. This leaves gaps for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It immediately conveys the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for a simple tool like this.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It states the purpose but omits behavioral context (e.g., output format, error handling) that would help an agent use it correctly. For a read operation with no structured guidance, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here—no compensation is needed. A baseline of 4 reflects that the description doesn't need to cover parameters for this zero-param tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Docker images on the host'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_containers' by specifying images rather than containers, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for listing images, it doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other tools or mention prerequisites like Docker being installed. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'force' parameter, which hints at potential resistance (e.g., if the image is in use), but doesn't explain what happens without force, whether removal is permanent, if it affects running containers, or any error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial parameter guidance. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a destructive operation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover important aspects like what happens on success/failure, whether removal is reversible, or how it interacts with sibling tools (e.g., containers using the image). For a tool that modifies system state, this leaves too much unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('id' as 'Image ID or tag' and 'force' as 'Force remove'). The description adds minimal value by reiterating the 'force' parameter usage but doesn't provide additional context like examples of image IDs/tags or what 'force' specifically overrides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('Docker image'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_container' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other image-related tools (none in the sibling list), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by mentioning 'force=true to force removal', which implies when to use that parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_images' (for checking before removal) or 'remove_container' (for different resources). The guidance is limited to parameter usage rather than tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves stats but lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to understand quickly with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving stats for a container) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or dependencies, which could hinder an AI agent's ability to use it effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Container ID or name.' The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and the resource ('CPU, memory, and network stats for a running Docker container'), distinguishing it from siblings like container_logs (logs) or exec_command (execute commands). It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying 'for a running Docker container,' suggesting it should be used when a container is active. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_containers for status vs. stats) or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity in context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent (starting an already running container), what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, permissions needed, or what constitutes success/failure. Given the complexity of container management and lack of structured data, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Container ID or name'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Start') and resource ('a stopped Docker container'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'restart_container' (which implies a running container) and 'stop_container' (the opposite action). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'a stopped Docker container', which helps differentiate from 'restart_container' (for running containers). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about edge cases like containers in other states (e.g., paused).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the destructive nature ('Remove') and the force option for running containers, which are critical behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether removal is irreversible, or error handling, leaving room for improvement in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and a key parameter nuance but lacks details on prerequisites, side effects, or return values, which would enhance completeness for such a tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('id' and 'force') fully. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the 'force' parameter's purpose but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Remove a Docker container') and resource ('Docker container'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'remove_image' (which targets images) and 'stop_container' (which stops but doesn't remove). It uses a precise verb that directly matches the tool's name without being tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use 'force=true' (for running containers), which helps differentiate usage from simply stopping a container first. However, it doesn't mention alternatives like using 'stop_container' before removal or when not to use this tool, leaving some context gaps compared to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-docker MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ofershap/mcp-server-docker/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ofershap/mcp-server-docker)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-docker MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ofershap/mcp-server-docker/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ofershap/mcp-server-docker)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ofershap/mcp-server-docker'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server