mcpdockery

by Chandrakant1988

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

deploy_stack

Deploy a multi-container application using a docker-compose YAML definition. Specify a project name and compose file to launch and manage the stack.

Instructions

Deploys a multi-container application from a docker-compose YAML definition. Args: project_name: unique name for this stack, used to group/manage its containers compose_yaml: full contents of a docker-compose.yml describing the services

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": {
      "project_name": "<project_name>",
      "compose_yaml": "<compose_yaml>"
    },
    "name": "deploy_stack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`compose_yaml`	Yes
`project_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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only says 'deploys' but does not explain what happens to an existing stack with the same project name, whether resources are created or modified, or what state changes occur.

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 and well-structured, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by succinct parameter explanations. No redundant or irrelevant information 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?

For a two-parameter tool, the description covers the core invocation details and the purpose of each parameter. It could mention expected output or side effects, but the provided information is mostly sufficient for basic usage.

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?

The schema only provides type and required status, while the description adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: project_name is a unique grouping identifier, and compose_yaml must contain the full docker-compose.yml contents. This fully covers the parameters.

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 tool's action: deploying a multi-container application from a docker-compose YAML definition. It identifies the specific resource and scope without ambiguity.

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?

The description implies usage when deploying a Compose-based stack, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as run_container, stack_status, or remove_stack. No direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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