Skip to main content
Glama

compose_wait

Read-only

Block until specified Docker Compose services stop, then return their exit codes. Useful for one-shot or batch workloads that exit after completing their task.

Instructions

Block until the named service containers stop, then return their exit codes.

For one-shot / batch services. A long-running service that never exits blocks until timeout_seconds, then the subprocess is killed (TimeoutExpired) — bound it sensibly. Exit codes are on stdout. For a single container use container_wait; for swarm services use service_wait.

args: services - One or more services to wait on. At least one is required. 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 timeout_seconds - Subprocess timeout (default 300s) returns: dict - {"returncode": int, "stdout": str, "stderr": str, "truncated": bool}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesNo
servicesYes
project_dirNo
project_nameNo
timeout_secondsNo
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it blocks until timeout, kills the subprocess on timeout (TimeoutExpired), returns exit codes on stdout, and notes the project_dir copy behavior. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by usage notes and a structured args block. It's a bit long but every section earns its place—especially given the lack of schema descriptions. The formatting is clear and scannable.

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?

For a medium-complexity tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, timeout behavior, and return value format. It even distinguishes from related tools. No critical information is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates with an args section explaining each parameter: services (required), project_dir (default server cwd, copied to target if no plugin), files (repeatable), project_name (override), timeout_seconds (default 300). This adds meaning that the schema alone lacks, and even covers nuance like the plugin copy behavior.

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 states precisely what the tool does: blocks until named service containers stop and returns their exit codes. It clearly identifies the resource (compose services) and the action (wait), and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like container_wait and service_wait.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for one-shot/batch services, and warns about long-running services with timeout_seconds. It even names alternatives: 'For a single container use container_wait; for swarm services use service_wait.' This is exemplary usage guidance.

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/L337-org/docker-mcp'

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