dpanel_compose_listList all Docker Compose projects with their running container overview, so you can check project status before managing or deploying stacks.
Compose 项目列表（含运行容器概览）。注意：dangling 项目 id=0，仅可查看。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. '仅可查看' signals read-only behavior and the dangling id=0 caveat warns about a pseudo-project that cannot be operated on, which is genuinely useful. However, nothing is said about scope (all projects vs. current environment) or pagination/result limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact clauses, purpose first, caveat second — nothing wasted. It is arguably too terse for a non-Chinese-speaking agent, but the structure is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero parameters and an output schema already defined, the description only needs to cover purpose and any special semantics; it does both, including the dangling-project quirk. A short note on when to prefer this over compose_task/compose_log would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no argument semantics to clarify beyond the implicit 'returns everything' behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: listing Compose projects, plus the extra detail that each entry includes a running-container overview. This distinguishes it from compose_task/compose_log/compose_deploy siblings, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied — read the list before acting on a compose project. The note that the dangling project (id=0) is view-only is a useful constraint, but there is no stated when-to-use vs. sibling compose tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.