portainer-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

portainer_service_inspect

Inspect a Docker Swarm service to retrieve its full definition, including spec, update status, and endpoint. Optionally reveal environment variable values.

Instructions

Get the full Swarm service definition (spec, update status, endpoint).

Credential-looking environment values in the container spec are masked as [REDACTED] unless reveal_env=true.

Args: service_id: Service ID or name (e.g. "arena-etl_backend") reveal_env: Return credential values unmasked (default false) endpoint_id: Target endpoint ID (uses default if omitted)

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": {
      "service_id": "<service_id>"
    },
    "name": "portainer_service_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reveal_env`	No
`service_id`	Yes
`endpoint_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.8.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It clearly discloses that credential-looking environment values are masked unless reveal_env=true, which is a key behavioral trait.

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 succinct, with a clear purpose statement and a well-organized parameter list. No unnecessary filler is present.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description mentions the output includes spec, update status, and endpoint, which gives a good sense of the return content. It does not detail the output schema, but the presence of an output schema and the explicit description of returned fields make it sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions, but the description explains all three parameters: service_id (ID or name), reveal_env (unmask credentials), and endpoint_id (target endpoint). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves the full Swarm service definition, including spec, update status, and endpoint. This distinguishes it from related tools like service logs, tasks, or updates.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for inspecting a service's full definition but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as service_tasks or service_logs. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server