Skip to main content
Glama

remove_container

Delete a Docker container by ID or name. Use the force option to remove running containers.

Instructions

Remove a Docker container

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
containerYesContainer ID or name
forceNoForce removal of running container

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'remove_container' tool. It validates the container argument, constructs the 'docker rm' command with optional force flag, executes it, and returns the stdout.
    private async removeContainer(args: ContainerActionArgs) {
      if (!args.container) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InvalidParams,
          'Container parameter is required'
        );
      }
      
      const force = args.force === true ? ' -f' : '';
      const { stdout } = await execAsync(`docker rm${force} ${args.container}`);
      
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: stdout.trim(),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the input parameters for remove_container and similar container actions.
    interface ContainerActionArgs {
      container: string;
      force?: boolean;
    }
  • src/index.ts:151-168 (registration)
    Tool registration in the ListTools response, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'remove_container',
      description: 'Remove a Docker container',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          container: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Container ID or name',
          },
          force: {
            type: 'boolean',
            description: 'Force removal of running container',
          },
        },
        required: ['container'],
      },
    },
  • Switch case in the CallToolRequest handler that dispatches to the removeContainer method.
    case 'remove_container':
      return await this.removeContainer(request.params.arguments as unknown as ContainerActionArgs);

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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 only says 'Remove a Docker container' and fails to disclose that removal is destructive, that running containers require the force flag, or that the operation is irreversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The brevity comes at the cost of omitting important behavioral and usage context for a destructive operation.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive action, the description is not complete enough. An agent cannot infer the delete semantics, the force behavior, or how this differs from stop_container. For such a simple tool, these missing details are critical.

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 both 'container' and 'force' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('Docker container'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_network and stop_container. However, it closely paraphrases the tool name and does not clarify that 'remove' means delete rather than stop, so it stops short of a fully informative purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop_container, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the container needing to exist or not be running unless force is used. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'remove'.

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