omv-mcp

by vnaveenb

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

get_stack_compose

Retrieve the full Docker Compose file for a Portainer stack by its stack ID for inspection or backup.

Instructions

The full compose file for a Portainer stack.

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": {
      "stack_id": "<stack_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_stack_compose"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`stack_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the compose file is, without mentioning that the operation is read-only, what happens if the stack_id is invalid, or any other effects. This is minimal and under-specified for a tool with no annotation context.

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 a single concise phrase, front-loaded with the key information ('full compose file'). It wastes no words, though it is perhaps too terse and not a complete sentence, which limits its clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), but the description is too brief to be complete. It lacks any usage context, prerequisites, or notes about the return value, relying entirely on the schema. Given the absence of annotations, the description should do more.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the stack_id parameter at all. The parameter name and title are self-explanatory, but the description fails to differentiate it or provide any additional context, leaving the agent to infer the relationship between 'Portainer stack' and 'stack_id'.

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 clearly identifies the resource: the full compose file for a Portainer stack. It avoids mere tautology and conveys the tool's object, though it lacks an explicit verb ('gets' or 'retrieves') and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like list_stacks or update_stack.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., needing a stack_id), or how it differs from alternatives like list_stacks or restart_stack. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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