Get a list of Docker networks with their IDs, names, drivers, and scopes on your OpenMediaVault NAS.
Docker networks (id, name, driver, scope).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_networks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists output fields and gives no information about side effects, required permissions, or return format. While 'list' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using a single line and front-loading the key resource. However, it is under-specified and reads more like a comment than a functional description, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless list tool, the description provides the essential output fields, which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. However, it lacks context about ordering, filtering, or relationship to sibling network tools, making it minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, warranting a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information but is not required to do so for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Docker networks (id, name, driver, scope)' identifies the resource and fields but lacks an explicit verb. The tool name 'list_networks' supplies the action, but the description itself is a noun phrase, making it vague without the name context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'docker_system_df' or 'network_info'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.