Skip to main content
Glama

docker_health

Read-only

Check Docker health from three angles: container healthcheck verdicts, daemon responsiveness, and configured host profiles. Each result explains its own meaning, including services with no healthcheck.

Instructions

services says whether the containers answer their healthchecks, server whether this process is well, profiles which Docker hosts it was given. The word healthy means something different in each branch, so every answer explains its own verdict. A service that declares no healthcheck is said to have none, not counted as sick.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesservices: what each container says about itself through its own healthcheck. server: whether the daemon answers this server and what it knows about itself. profiles: the hosts it was configured with, read from the configuration and not connected to.
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.
servicesNoOnly these services, for action services. Default: every container of the project.
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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionNo
brokenNo
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.
reasonNo
serverNo
sourceNo
overallNo
projectNo
profilesNo
servicesNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that 'healthy' is branch-specific, that every answer explains its own verdict, and that services without a healthcheck are reported as 'none' rather than sick. This materially reduces the risk of misinterpreting results.

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?

Three short sentences cover the branches, the core ambiguity, and the no-healthcheck edge case with no filler. The most decision-relevant nuance—'healthy means something different in each branch'—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 read-only health tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description supplies the key behavioral caveats. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could be slightly stronger with an explicit statement that it performs no container changes.

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 all five parameters with 100% coverage, including the meaning of each action value. The description adds only a small amount of context about the healthcheck interpretation, so it does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 names the three actions and what each reports: container healthchecks, server health, and configured Docker hosts. It is clear, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with sibling tools like docker_container_control or docker_logs, so some differentiation is left to inference.

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 action descriptions imply this is the tool for health and status checks, and the description warns about the different meanings of 'healthy.' It does not state when to prefer this over a control or log sibling, nor does it give explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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