Lists Portainer stacks with their IDs, names, and status values to enable quick monitoring and management.
Portainer stacks (id, name, status).
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": "list_stacks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the output fields (id, name, status), which gives some expectation of a read-only listing, but it does not mention potential behaviors such as sorting, filtering, or error conditions. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short parenthetical with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the resource and the output fields, making it highly scannable and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: the resource and the returned fields. It could be slightly more explicit about returning a list of stacks, but the plural 'stacks' and the field list make the behavior sufficiently clear for a simple read-only call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The listed fields (id, name, status) are clearly output fields, not parameter descriptions, and with no parameters the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource (Portainer stacks) and the expected output fields (id, name, status), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_containers or list_images. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a full sentence with a verb; the action is implicit in the tool name 'list_stacks'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stack_compose or start_stack. Usage is implied by the resource name and the list verb, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.