Retrieve detailed configuration for a Portainer stack, including environment variables, entrypoint, and resource controls, to inspect and troubleshoot deployments.
[READ] One Portainer stack in detail (env, entrypoint, resource control).
Requires a portainer target.
Args: stack_id: Portainer stack id. target: Target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| stack_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The '[READ]' tag and readOnlyHint annotation already signal a safe read, so the description needn't re-explain safety. It adds modest value by naming the returned sections (env, entrypoint, resource control), but says nothing about failure modes, permissions, or missing-stack behavior.
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?
Front-loaded with the read tag and the core purpose, followed by a compact Args block. No filler, though the two-sentence split into prose plus an arg list is slightly redundant.
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?
With no output schema, the description should describe returns, and it only gestures at them by listing sections. Annotations cover the read safety profile. Adequate for a simple read, but an agent still lacks detail on the response shape.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the params, and it does: stack_id is defined as the Portainer stack id, and target is explained as a config name with 'omit for the default'. This adds real semantics beyond the bare schema, though stack_id's expected format is not clarified.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: retrieving one Portainer stack 'in detail', and enumerates what detail means (env, entrypoint, resource control). The singular 'one stack' distinguishes it from list_stacks/list_compose_stacks, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
States a prerequisite ('Requires a portainer target') that helps an agent pick the right target. It does not say when to reach for this versus list_stacks or inspect-style siblings, so usage remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.