Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dokploy MCP Server

Dokploy MCP Server

by bravos2k5
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

docker-getContainersByAppNameMatch

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Docker containers that match a specified application name, with optional filters for app type and server.

Instructions

GET /docker.getContainersByAppNameMatch

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "appName": "<appName>"
    },
    "name": "docker-getContainersByAppNameMatch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appTypeNo
appNameYes
serverIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.29.1

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as what resources are accessed or whether results are paginated. A minimal score of 2 is given because the description fails to add value.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short (one line) but fails to convey any useful information. Conciseness should be paired with completeness; here it is under-specification, not efficient communication.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at return values, but it does not. Additionally, with multiple related sibling tools, the description offers no differentiation, leaving the agent ill-equipped to use it correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (appType, appName, serverId). Without additional context, the agent cannot understand their semantics beyond basic types and constraints.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description 'GET /docker.getContainersByAppNameMatch' merely repeats the tool name and HTTP method, failing to state what the tool actually does. There is no verb or resource specification beyond the name itself.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus siblings like docker-getContainers or docker-getContainersByAppLabel, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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