Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
opsgate

opsgate

by polymatx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go

compose_ps

List services in a Docker Compose project from a directory, optionally targeting a configured opsgate host, to check project status before changes.

Instructions

List services of a Docker Compose project in a directory.

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": {
      "dir": "<dir>"
    },
    "name": "compose_ps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dirYesdirectory containing the compose file
hostNotarget host name from the opsgate config; omit for the default host

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' weakly implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about behavior when the directory lacks a compose file, whether a Docker daemon/host connection is needed, or what shape the result takes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing guidance rather than a virtue of restraint.

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 two-parameter list operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core intent is conveyed. Still missing are failure conditions (no compose file, unreachable host) and any tie-breaker against the closely named docker_ps sibling.

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% and both parameters (dir, host) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond restating the directory scope.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus a precisely scoped resource ('services of a Docker Compose project in a directory'). It is distinguishable from docker_ps by the project/directory scope, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this versus docker_ps or service_list, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the directory must contain a compose file). Usage is only inferable from the scope phrase 'in a directory'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools