Docker MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

stop_container

Stop a running Docker container by specifying its ID or name. This tool halts container execution for management or resource conservation.

Instructions

Stop a running Docker container

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`container`	Yes	Container ID or name

Implementation Reference

src/index.ts:312-330 (handler)

The handler function implementing the 'stop_container' tool logic: validates input and executes 'docker stop' command.

private async stopContainer(args: ContainerActionArgs) {
  if (!args.container) {
    throw new McpError(
      ErrorCode.InvalidParams,
      'Container parameter is required'
    );
  }
  
  const { stdout } = await execAsync(`docker stop ${args.container}`);
  
  return {
    content: [
      {
        type: 'text',
        text: stdout.trim(),
      },
    ],
  };
}

src/index.ts:31-35 (schema)
Type/interface definition for arguments used in stop_container (and remove_container).
```
interface ContainerActionArgs {
  container: string;
  force?: boolean;
}
```

src/index.ts:138-150 (registration)

Tool registration in list_tools handler: defines name, description, and input schema for 'stop_container'.

  name: 'stop_container',
  description: 'Stop a running Docker container',
  inputSchema: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {
      container: {
        type: 'string',
        description: 'Container ID or name',
      },
    },
    required: ['container'],
  },
},

src/index.ts:195-196 (handler)
Dispatcher in CallToolRequestSchema handler that invokes the stopContainer method for 'stop_container' tool.
```
case 'stop_container':
  return await this.stopContainer(request.params.arguments as unknown as ContainerActionArgs);
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 18, 2025

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary action but does not explain side effects such as the container remaining present but stopped, needing to be running first, or that this is non-destructive. No contradictions exist, but depth is minimal.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler words and directly front-loads the action and target. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral context such as state change, non-destructiveness, and how it differs from removal. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the parameter is already documented as 'Container ID or name'. The description adds little beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Stop') and resource ('a running Docker container'), so an agent immediately knows the core operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like remove_container, but 'stop' versus 'remove' is reasonably clear from the action word.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this only applies to running containers, that it should not be used to remove a container, or when run_container or remove_container would be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server