Skip to main content
Glama

infra_ops

Manage Docker images, networks, and volumes by listing, pulling, building, creating, pruning, and removing resources through one operation-based tool.

Instructions

Docker Images, Networks, and Volumes operations.

Operations: list_images, get_image, pull_image, build_image, remove_image, prune_images, list_networks, get_network, create_network, remove_network, prune_networks, list_volumes, get_volume, create_volume, remove_volume, prune_volumes.

Args: See Parameters block.

Return Format

{"success": bool, "action": str, "message": str, "result": {...}}

  • list_images: {"images": [{"id", "name", "tag", "size", ...}]}

  • pull_image: {"status": str, "image": str}

  • list_volumes: {"volumes": [{"name", "driver", ...}]}

Examples

infra_ops(operation="list_images", all_images=True) infra_ops(operation="pull_image", image="nginx", tag="alpine") infra_ops(operation="create_network", name="app-net", driver="bridge")

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rmNo
tagNolatest
ipamNo
nameNo
pathNo
pullNo
forceNo
imageNo
driverNo
labelsNo
squashNo
filtersNo
forcermNo
ingressNo
nocacheNo
nopruneNo
optionsNo
internalNo
platformNo
buildargsNo
operationNo
all_imagesNo
attachableNo
dockerfileNoDockerfile
network_idNo
driver_optsNo
enable_ipv6No
volume_nameNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description explicitly lists remove_image, prune_images, remove_network, prune_networks, remove_volume, and prune_volumes, which are destructive operations. This directly contradicts the annotation and is a serious safety-signaling inconsistency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description uses clear sections for operations, return format, and examples, with the main domain and operation list front-loaded. It is reasonably concise for a multiplexed tool, though 'Args: See Parameters block' adds little value.

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 16-operation, 28-parameter tool, the description lists operations and gives a few examples but does not explain operation-specific parameter requirements or safety implications. The output schema exists, but the missing parameter mapping and contradictory destructive hint leave the agent under-equipped.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are 28 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mostly says 'Args: See Parameters block.' The examples clarify only a few fields such as all_images, image, tag, name, and driver, leaving most operation-specific parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 identifies the tool as covering Docker Images, Networks, and Volumes operations and lists the supported operation names. It is specific about the resource domain but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as container_ops or compose_*.

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 operation list and examples imply when the tool is applicable, particularly for image, network, and volume operations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like container_ops, compose_up, or host_ops, nor are exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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