Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Docker MCP Server

Docker MCP Server

by good-gis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

docker_logs

Fetch and display Docker container logs to troubleshoot issues. Accepts container ID/name and optional tail to limit lines.

Instructions

Получить логи контейнера

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": {
      "container": "<container>"
    },
    "name": "docker_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tailNoКоличество последних строк (default: 100)
containerYesID или имя контейнера

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get container logs' and does not mention output format, streaming behavior, read-only nature, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, clear sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential action.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple log retrieval tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it does not explain return values or behavior nuances (e.g., whether it outputs raw logs or includes metadata). With no output schema and no annotations, additional context would have improved completeness.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (container and tail) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Получить логи контейнера' means 'Get container logs', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like docker_run, docker_ps, docker_stop, and docker_remove, which perform different operations on containers.

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 usage (when you need container logs), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For a simple tool this is understandable, but it lacks explicit context.

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