cargoshipper-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

docker_get_logs

Retrieve Docker container logs with options for tail count, timestamp inclusion, and live follow. Specify container ID and customize log output.

Instructions

Get logs from a Docker container

Args: container_id: Container ID or name tail: Number of lines from end of logs (default: 100) follow: Follow log output (default: False) timestamps: Include timestamps (default: True)

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": {
      "container_id": "<container_id>"
    },
    "name": "docker_get_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`container_id`	Yes
`tail`	No
`follow`	No
`timestamps`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description implies a read operation ('get logs'), but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe. With no annotations, the agent must infer this from the verb. It does disclose default parameter behaviors, which adds some transparency.

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?

The description is concise with a single-line purpose followed by a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded and efficiently uses space, though a brief note on behavior could be added without bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple log retrieval tool, the description covers all parameters and the core operation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Missing: error handling or performance notes, but generally adequate.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description documents all four parameters, explaining their purpose (e.g., 'tail' is number of lines from end, 'follow' to follow output). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves logs from a Docker container, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage containers, images, or DNS records. The verb 'get' and resource 'logs' make the purpose explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docker_list_containers or docker_system_info. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., container must exist) or conditions under which logs are available.

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