mcpdockery

by Chandrakant1988

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

container_logs

Retrieve and display log output from a Docker container, with sensitive values automatically redacted. Specify container name and optional line limit.

Instructions

Collect and display the logs for a container. Values that look like secrets (PASSWORD=, "token": "...", etc.) are redacted before being returned. Args: container_name: Container name to collect logs tail: Number of log lines to return (default 200)

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_name": "<container_name>"
    },
    "name": "container_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tail`	No
`container_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description mentions that secret-like values are redacted, which is a useful behavioral note. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any potential side effects, relying on the implied 'collect and display' nature.

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, containing only essential information about the action, secret redaction, and parameter meanings. No redundant or verbose content is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description provides necessary context for a basic logs tool, including secret redaction and the default tail value. It does not describe the output format or edge cases, but for a straightforward logs retrieval, it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters (container_name and tail) are described in the description text. Container name is identified as the target, and tail is clarified as the number of lines with a default of 200. This fully covers the input schema.

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 verb 'collect and display' and the resource 'logs for a container'. It is distinct from sibling tools like container_inspect or container_stats, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stack_logs or container_inspect. An agent would need to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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