Skip to main content
Glama
L337-org

docker-mcp-server

by L337-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compose_config

Read-only

Render the final compose configuration after merging files, activating profiles, and substituting variables. Validate your compose setup before running compose up.

Instructions

Render the canonical compose configuration after merges, profiles, and variable substitution.

Use it to validate compose files and see exactly what the CLI will run before compose_up. Does not raise on a non-zero CLI exit (a missing compose plugin or a timeout still raises): on a failed render config may be None - inspect raw.stderr.

Args: project_dir: Dir with the compose file (default: server cwd; copied to the target host if no local plugin) files: Explicit compose file paths (repeatable, -f) project_name: Compose project name override profiles: Profiles to activate before rendering services_only: List service names only (--services) format: Render as YAML (default) or JSON

Returns: dict: {"config": str|dict|None, "raw": }; config is a parsed dict when format="json" and parsing succeeds, otherwise the rendered text from stdout.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesNo
formatNoyaml
profilesNo
project_dirNo
project_nameNo
services_onlyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / format / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "yaml",
+  "json"
+]
  2. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds critical behavior: it does not raise on non-zero CLI exit, but does raise on missing plugin or timeout, and warns that config may be None on failure with a pointer to inspect raw.stderr. It also explains the return format when format='json'. These details disclose exactly how the tool behaves in edge cases, enriching beyond the structured annotations.

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 well-structured: it front-loads the core action, then usage, then error/return behavior, then parameters. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The argument list is compact yet informative, and the return format is explicitly defined. No filler or repetition exists.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects for correct invocation: purpose, usage context, error handling, parameter semantics, and return structure (including the dict format and how config changes with format). It even notes the target-host copy nuance. Given there is no output schema, this is fully complete for a read-only config tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries the burden. All 6 parameters are individually described with meaning, defaults, and even CLI flag equivalences (e.g., 'repeatable, `-f`' for files, '`--services`' for services_only). It also notes 'project_dir' is copied to the target host when no local plugin. This adds significant semantic value beyond the raw schema, which only has types and defaults.

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 opens with a precise verb and object: 'Render the canonical compose configuration after merges, profiles, and variable substitution.' It then states its intended use: 'validate compose files and see exactly what the CLI will run before compose_up.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling compose tools like compose_up (which executes) and compose_ps (which lists services), 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly suggests using this tool to validate and preview the configuration before running compose_up, giving a strong context and timing for use. It does not list alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the phrase 'before compose_up' implicitly positions it as the inspection counterpart to the execution tool, which is sufficient for guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools