Skip to main content
Glama

docker_compose_ps

Check the status of Docker Compose services to monitor running containers and their health in a specified directory.

Instructions

Show status of Docker Compose services

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
directoryNoDirectory containing docker-compose.yml

Implementation Reference

  • The actual implementation of the tool 'docker_compose_ps' which executes the 'docker compose ps' command.
    export async function composePs(args: Record<string, unknown>): Promise<string> {
      const directory = (args.directory as string) || ".";
      try {
        const { stdout } = await execFileAsync("docker", ["compose", "ps", "--format", "table"], {
          cwd: directory,
          timeout: 30000,
        });
        return stdout.trim() || "No compose services found.";
      } catch (error) {
        const msg = error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error);
        throw new Error(`Failed to run docker compose ps: ${msg}`);
      }
    }
  • The schema registration for 'docker_compose_ps'.
      name: "docker_compose_ps",
      description: "Show status of Docker Compose services",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object" as const,
        properties: {
          directory: { type: "string", description: "Directory containing docker-compose.yml" },
        },
      },
    },
  • The dispatch logic for 'docker_compose_ps' in the handler function.
    case "docker_compose_ps": return composePs(a);
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Show status' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'status' includes (running/stopped/restarting), whether it shows all services or filtered ones, output format, or any execution constraints. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that interacts with Docker services.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted text. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly efficient despite its brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a Docker operations tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'status' means in practical terms, what the output looks like, how it differs from related Docker tools, or any operational considerations. The context demands more detail than provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single 'directory' parameter. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition, as the schema already fully documents the parameter's purpose and type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Show status') and resource ('Docker Compose services'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from similar sibling tools like 'docker_list_containers' or 'docker_compose_logs', which reduces its differentiation value.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple Docker-related sibling tools available, there's no indication of whether this is for Compose-specific status, how it differs from general container listing tools, or any prerequisites like requiring a docker-compose.yml file.

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/batu-sonmez/infraclaude'

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