mcpdockery

by Chandrakant1988

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

stack_logs

Retrieve log output from every container in a specified Docker Compose stack, with an option to limit lines per container.

Instructions

Collects logs from all containers in a compose stack. Args: project_name: unique name for this stack, used to group/manage its containers tail: number of log lines to return per container (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": {
      "project_name": "<project_name>"
    },
    "name": "stack_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tail`	No
`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

A3.9/5.0

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. It only says 'Collects logs' without disclosing side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. There is no mention of potential large output or formatting details.

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 brief and to the point, with a clear one-line summary followed by a compact Args list. No redundant language or filler.

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 presence of an output schema covers the return structure, and the description provides enough to understand the tool's purpose for a simple log retrieval. It does not mention output formatting or combined log order, but this is not critical for a logs tool and sibling tools likely follow similar patterns.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explicitly explains both parameters (project_name and tail) and notes the default for tail. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Collects logs') and the target ('all containers in a compose stack'), which distinguishes it from container_logs (likely single-container). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when logs are needed from an entire stack, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like container_logs, nor does it provide any contextual prerequisites or exceptions.

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