Skip to main content
Glama

docker_compose_control

DestructiveIdempotent

Bring Docker Compose services up or down, report actual container status from the daemon, and refuse destructive volume deletion unless confirmation is provided.

Instructions

Brings the stack up or takes it down, and reports the containers standing afterwards as read from the daemon, not as compose described them. A stack that half came up says so instead of passing for a success. Taking volumes down with it destroys their data and is refused without confirm.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buildNoRebuild the images before starting, for action up. Default: false.
scaleNoHow many copies of a service to run, for action up: {"web": 3}.
actionYesup: create and start the services, always in the background. down: stop and remove the containers of the project.
confirmNoWritten out as "# CONFIRMED-DESTRUCTIVE", this allows deleting volumes for one call. Anything else leaves the refusal standing.
profileNoWhich Docker host, by profile name. Default: the profile marked as default.
projectNoWhich compose project. Default: the project of the working directory. A name matching nothing is an error, not a fall back to every container on the host.
timeoutNoSeconds each container gets to shut down before Docker kills it, for action down. Default: 10.
volumesNoDelete the volumes of the project along with the containers, for action down. The data inside them is destroyed and does not come back, so the call is refused without confirm. Default: false.
servicesNoOnly these services, for action up. Default: every service of the file.
compose_pathNoWhere the compose file is: the file itself, or the directory holding it. Needed only when no container of the host carries the project label — a project that was never brought up there. A directory holding several compose files is refused with their names rather than guessed through.
removeOrphansNoRemove containers left behind by services no longer in the file, for action down. Default: false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionNo
legendNoWhat the words in this answer mean. A key names the field before the value — "state=running", "containers[].health=unhealthy" — and only the values this answer used are listed.
outputNo
reasonNo
projectNo
removedNo
servicesNo
confirmedNo
destroyedNo
compose_fileNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive and idempotent hints, the description reveals critical behaviors: it reports daemon truth rather than compose intent, it fails loudly on partial stack bring-up, and volume deletion requires confirmation. This gives the agent important operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 only three sentences but packs in the core action, the critical reporting behavior, and the destructive edge case. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a complex tool with 11 parameters and nested objects, the description stays focused on the operational essentials and leaves parameter-level details to the well-covered schema. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it does not explicitly guide selection versus sibling tools.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful behavioral semantics around parameters like volumes and confirm by explaining the destructive consequence and the refusal without confirmation. It also clarifies that results reflect daemon state, which helps interpret the action parameter's effect.

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 names the exact operation on a specific resource: bringing a compose stack up or down. It also distinguishes its reporting behavior from compose's own description by saying it reads actual daemon state, which separates it from sibling tools like docker_compose.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description makes clear it acts on the whole stack and reports real container state, so an agent can infer this is the stack-level control tool rather than a single-container tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hypnosis/docker-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server