Filesystem MCP

compose_restart

Restart all or selected Docker Compose services at a specified project path to recover containers or apply updated configuration without rebuilding.

Instructions

Restart compose services (docker compose restart).

Return Format

{"success": bool, "action": str, "message": str, "result": {"output": str, "stderr": str}} On failure: {"success": false, "error": str, "recovery_options": [...]}

Examples

compose_restart(path="D:/dev/myapp") compose_restart(path="D:/dev/myapp", services=["web"])

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": "compose_restart"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	No	.
`timeout`	No
`services`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the success/failure response shape, but says nothing about downtime, whether containers are recreated, or what happens to in-flight work — the traits that matter most for a non-idempotent restart.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by return format and examples — every block is scannable and none is filler. The return-format block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, costing a point.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage, the definition is workable but thin: it never explains `timeout` or the all-services default, and gives no indication of restart scope or side effects. The return-format section does relieve pressure on describing outputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: the examples show that `path` locates the compose project and that `services` optionally narrows scope, but no parameter is explained. `timeout` is never mentioned, and the behavior when `services` is null (restart everything?) is left to inference.

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 and resource — restart compose services — and anchors it to the canonical equivalent (docker compose restart). An agent can distinguish it from compose_up/compose_down/compose_ps by the verb alone, though the description never explicitly contrasts those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied through two examples (restart whole stack via path, or a subset via services). There is no explicit guidance on when to restart versus compose_down + compose_up, nor any stated prerequisites such as requiring a running stack.

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