Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cargoshipper-mcp

cargoshipper-mcp

by scarr7981
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

docker_remove_container

Remove a Docker container by ID or name. Optionally force remove running containers.

Instructions

Remove a Docker container

Args: container_id: Container ID or name force: Force remove running container

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_id": "<container_id>"
    },
    "name": "docker_remove_container"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
container_idYes
forceNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description lacks behavioral details. It does not explain that removing a container destroys it, or that force is needed for running containers. Given no annotations, 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, with parameters listed after the main action. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameters, but for a removal tool, it lacks context on consequences, failure modes, or return values. The presence of an output schema somewhat mitigates, but overall completeness is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose. It clarifies that container_id can be ID or name, and force allows removal of running containers. This is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 action (remove) and resource (Docker container). It distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_stop_container which stops but does not remove.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like docker_stop_container, nor does it mention prerequisites or side effects.

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