portainer-mcp-server

list_containers

List Docker containers for a Portainer environment using its environment ID. Optionally include stopped containers to view the complete set.

Instructions

List containers in a Portainer environment

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_containers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`all`	No	Include stopped containers (default: true)
`environmentId`	Yes	Portainer environment ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning what the response contains, default behaviors (e.g., that the 'all' parameter defaults to true), or any side effects. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool's purpose and lacks behavioral context beyond the name.

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 every word contributes to the meaning.

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 list tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about return value shape (no output schema exists) and any guidance on typical usage. The schema provides parameter details, but the description does not compensate for the absence of output schema or make the tool more self-explanatory.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters ('environmentId' and 'all') having meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics or context 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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (containers) with an environment scoping. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like inspect_container (single container details) and get_container_logs (logs), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 for listing containers within a specific Portainer environment, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., inspect_container for details, list_environments for environment info). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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

Deploy Server