portainer-mcp-server

get_container_logs

Retrieve container logs from Portainer by environment and container ID, with optional tail limit and timestamps.

Instructions

Get logs from a container

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": {
      "environmentId": "<environmentId>",
      "containerId": "<containerId>"
    },
    "name": "get_container_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tail`	No	Number of lines from the end (default: 100)
`timestamps`	No	Include timestamps
`containerId`	Yes	Container ID or name
`environmentId`	Yes	Portainer environment ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that logs come from stdout/stderr, that only a limited number of lines are returned by default, or that the operation is read-only. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about expected behavior.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is perfectly front-loaded and each word is meaningful, even if more detail could be added without sacrificing 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?

The description is too sparse for effective tool selection and invocation. It does not mention the default tail limit, the optional timestamps flag, or that logs are returned as text lines. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should include these crucial behavioral details.

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 fully describes all four parameters, including tail (with default) and timestamps. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action (get) and resource (logs from a container), which distinguishes it from siblings like inspect_container. However, it lacks any scope details or explicit differentiation from other tools, making it clear but not maximally specific.

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 context on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as inspect_container or list_containers. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server