Filesystem MCP

compose_up

Start Docker Compose services for a project, optionally building images or targeting specific services, to launch multi-container applications.

Instructions

Start Compose services (docker compose up).

Recovery: If build fails, fix Dockerfile/context; if ports conflict, edit compose or stop conflicting services.

Idempotency: Re-running up is generally safe; may recreate containers per compose semantics.

Return Format

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

Examples

compose_up(path="D:/dev/myapp") compose_up(path="D:/dev/myapp", services=["web", "db"], build=True)

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_up"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	No	.
`build`	No
`scale`	No
`detach`	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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value with a build failure/port conflict recovery path and the note that re-running may recreate containers per compose semantics (consistent with idempotentHint=false). It still doesn't mention permission requirements or that detach defaults to true.

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 with the core action, then recovery, idempotency, return format, and examples in scannable sections. The return-format block is largely redundant given the output schema exists, slightly reducing density but not hurting comprehension.

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?

Output schema exists, so restating return shape is unnecessary, and the mutation/recovery context is covered. The remaining gap is the undefined semantics of half the parameters (detach, timeout, scale) plus no note on permissions for a container-mutating operation.

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 0% across 6 parameters, and the examples only illustrate path, services, and build. Meaning of detach (default true), timeout (default 300), and scale is left entirely to inference, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Start Compose services (docker compose up)'), which is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like compose_restart or compose_down, but the word 'Start' plus the literal command mapping makes selection clear enough.

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?

It provides recovery guidance after a failed build or port conflict and an idempotency note, which implies when it's appropriate to (re)run. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus compose_restart or compose_down, so the agent must infer boundaries.

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