Skip to main content
Glama

registry_tag_wait

Read-only

Wait for a specific tag to appear in a Docker registry repository by polling at intervals until the tag is found or the timeout expires.

Instructions

Block until a specific tag appears in a repository (e.g. waiting for a CI push to land).

Never raises on timeout — the result always carries met and timed_out. Polls registry_tags every poll_intervals and checks whether tag is in its result. Works against Docker Hub too (registry_tags' own scope covers it), so there is no separate Hub variant. Unlike every other wait tool, this has no host argument — registry tools talk HTTPS directly to the registry, not a Docker daemon.

Caveat: registry_tags paginates up to 50 pages (or limit tags, whichever comes first); if tag would only appear beyond that window it is never found, even once it exists. Raise limit if you expect a very large tag list.

args: repository - Image/repository ref, e.g. "alpine", "ghcr.io/org/repo"; any :tag/@digest is stripped tag - The exact tag name to wait for username - Optional registry username (overrides DOCKER_MCP_SERVER_REGISTRY_USERNAME) password - Optional registry password/token (overrides DOCKER_MCP_SERVER_REGISTRY_PASSWORD) limit - Max tags to scan per poll (default 1000, >= 1); forwarded to registry_tags timeout_seconds - Max seconds to wait before returning with timed_out=true (default 600) poll_interval - Seconds between re-checks (default 5, > 0); capped by the time left so a large value can't push the total wait past the timeout returns: dict - {"repository", "tag", "met", "timed_out", "waited_seconds"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagYes
limitNo
passwordNo
usernameNo
repositoryYes
poll_intervalNo
timeout_secondsNo
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description details that the tool never raises on timeout, returns 'met' and 'timed_out', polls registry_tags with controlled intervals, and explains the pagination limitation. This provides rich behavioral context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a summary, behavior explanation, caveats, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While comprehensive, it is slightly verbose (e.g., the parameter list could be integrated into the schema). Still, every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return dict structure. It covers polling behavior, timeout handling, authentication, and the pagination caveat. Given the complexity of a polling tool with timeout, the description is complete and anticipates agent questions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in the 'args:' section, including format, defaults, and constraints (e.g., repository: 'any :tag/@digest is stripped', poll_interval: 'capped by the time left').

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: 'Block until a specific tag appears in a repository' with a specific use case example (waiting for a CI push). It distinguishes from other wait tools by explicitly noting the lack of a 'host' argument and that registry tools use direct HTTPS.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use the tool (waiting for a tag) and indicates no separate Hub variant is needed. It also provides a caveat about pagination and recommends raising 'limit' for large tag lists. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to all alternatives (e.g., registry_tags polling manually).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/GavinLucas/docker-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server