Impreza Host MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

impreza_restart_deployment

Restart any deployment's Docker Compose stack non‑destructively. Stops and starts containers, preserving all data volumes.

Instructions

Restart a deployment's docker-compose stack (non-destructive). The container is stopped + started; data volumes preserved. Status flips to installing briefly then back to running. Works for both catalog and custom deployments.

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": {
      "deployment_id": "<deployment_id>"
    },
    "name": "impreza_restart_deployment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deployment_id`	Yes	The dpl_... id to restart.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: non-destructive, data volumes preserved, status flips to 'installing' then back to 'running'. It does not mention permissions or edge cases, but for a restart operation it is adequately transparent.

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 concise sentences, each adding value: first sentence states core action and non-destructive nature, second adds process details and status behavior, third specifies scope. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers action, safety guarantees, status changes, and applicability. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter described as 'The dpl_... id to restart.' The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 (restart), the resource (deployment's docker-compose stack), and specifies it is non-destructive, distinguishing it from siblings like impreza_redeploy_deployment or impreza_uninstall_deployment. It also notes it works for both catalog and custom deployments.

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 implies when to use (non-destructive restart with data preserved) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, it is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate context.

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