cargoshipper-mcp

by scarr7981

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

docker_pull_image

Pull a Docker image from any registry, specifying image name, registry URL, and optional authentication.

Instructions

Pull a Docker image

Args: image: Image name to pull (e.g., 'nginx:latest') registry: Registry server URL (optional, defaults to Docker Hub) use_auth: Whether to use authentication (default: True)

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": {
      "image": "<image>"
    },
    "name": "docker_pull_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`image`	Yes
`registry`	No
`use_auth`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions authentication but does not describe side effects (e.g., overwriting existing images), progress, or failure modes. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Concise and front-loaded with purpose. Uses an args-style list which is clear, though could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). No unnecessary information.

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?

Output schema exists (not shown), so return values need not be detailed. However, for a pull operation, additional context like layer download handling or authentication failure behavior would improve completeness. Adequate for a simple tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: provides an example for image, notes registry defaults to Docker Hub, and explains use_auth defaults to True. This compensates well for missing schema descriptions.

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 states 'Pull a Docker image', which is clear and specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_list_images or docker_run_container. However, 'pull' could be further elaborated to clarify it downloads image layers.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docker_run_container (which pulls if missing). No mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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