Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
opsgate

opsgate

by polymatx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go

docker_ps

List Docker containers with their status, image, and ports. Optionally include stopped containers or target a host from opsgate config.

Instructions

List Docker containers with status, image and ports.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "docker_ps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allNoinclude stopped containers (default false)
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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned columns (status, image, ports) but says nothing about read-only safety, whether it can block, or how it behaves on an unreachable host — the schema covers the stopped-container default but not the safety profile.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and its return fields are stated immediately with no redundancy.

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?

The description partially compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields, and the parameter schema is complete. However, with no annotations and no usage context, an agent still lacks guidance on safety and on choosing between this and compose_ps or docker_stats.

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% with two well-documented parameters, so the schema already explains 'all' and 'host'. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("Docker containers") plus the notable output columns (status, image, ports), so the agent knows exactly what this tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling compose_ps, leaving that differentiation 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 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 tool versus alternatives such as compose_ps, docker_inspect, or docker_stats, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the name and the 'all' parameter.

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