Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
opsgate

opsgate

by polymatx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go

docker_inspect

Retrieve a container's health status, restart count, image, and mounts from a target host or default host to diagnose Docker issues.

Instructions

Inspect a container's health, restart count, image and mounts.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "container": "<container>"
    },
    "name": "docker_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostNotarget host name from the opsgate config; omit for the default host
containerYescontainer name or ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' reasonably implies a read-only operation and the description discloses the returned fields, but it says nothing about permissions, whether stopped containers can be inspected, or what happens if the container name/ID is invalid.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource comes first and the returned fields are packed into the same clause. Nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers what the tool does and roughly what it yields. The only gap is behavioral context (auth/state requirements) that no annotation supplies, which is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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% – both 'host' and 'container' are documented in the schema, including the default-host behavior. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a container') and enumerates the fields returned (health, restart count, image, mounts), which lets an agent distinguish it from docker_logs or docker_stats. It never names a sibling or scopes itself against them, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 listed fields (health, restart count) imply a diagnostic use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool. An agent must infer that this is the tool for pulling container metadata rather than metrics or logs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools