Skip to main content
Glama

container_exec

Execute a command inside a running Docker container, controlling user, environment, working directory, TTY, and detach options.

Instructions

Run a command inside a running container (for a compose service, prefer compose_exec).

Security: when any element of cmd is agent-controlled, use an exec-form argv list that does not invoke a shell (e.g. ["python", "-V"], ["ls", path]). A string cmd, or a shell form like ["sh", "-c", template], interprets shell metacharacters in the untrusted parts.

args: id_or_name - The container id or name cmd - Command to execute (prefer exec-form argv, no shell, when any element is agent-controlled) stdout - Attach to stdout stderr - Attach to stderr stdin - Attach to stdin tty - Allocate a pseudo-TTY privileged - Run with extended privileges user - User to run the command as detach - Detach from the exec environment - Environment variables workdir - Working directory inside the container demux - Return stdout and stderr separately returns: dict - {"exit_code", "output"}; output is combined stdout+stderr, or a [stdout, stderr] pair with demux=True

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cmdYes
ttyNo
userNo
demuxNo
stdinNo
detachNo
stderrNo
stdoutNo
workdirNo
id_or_nameYes
privilegedNo
environmentNo
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the minimal readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses important behavioral context: shell metacharacter risks, the exact return structure ({exit_code, output}), and how demux alters the return format. This goes well beyond what annotations alone offer.

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: a one-line purpose, a compact security note, and a clear args list followed by return semantics. Every sentence is informative, with no filler or repetition.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions in the schema, this description is self-sufficient. It covers all parameters, return behavior, and a key security caveat, leaving no major gap in the agent's ability to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description compensates fully by listing all 12 parameters with concise, meaningful explanations. It also adds crucial per-parameter guidance for `cmd` (prefer exec-form argv) and `demux` (separate stdout/stderr), making the schema much more usable.

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 'Run a command inside a running container', which names the specific verb, resource, and scope. It also explicitly directs compose-service users to `compose_exec`, distinguishing this tool from a close sibling.

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?

It gives explicit guidance to prefer `compose_exec` for compose services, and provides security-driven instructions on using exec-form argv when cmd elements are agent-controlled. This clearly communicates when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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