Which integrations are available for this server?

Generate Docker Compose stacks that include Celery as a task queue service, with healthchecks and resource limits. Generate Docker Compose stacks that include Django with PostgreSQL, with production-ready settings. Generate and audit Docker Compose stacks with best-practice configurations for security and reliability. Generate Docker Compose stacks that include FastAPI with PostgreSQL and optional Redis/Celery. Generate Docker Compose stacks for monitoring with Grafana, Prometheus, and node-exporter. Generate Docker Compose stacks that include MySQL as the database for WordPress. Generate Docker Compose stacks that include Next.js standalone with PostgreSQL. Generate Docker Compose stacks for a simple Nginx static server. Generate Docker Compose stacks that include Node.js services with PostgreSQL and/or Redis. Generate Docker Compose stacks that include PostgreSQL (16-alpine) with healthchecks and named volumes. Generate Docker Compose stacks for monitoring with Prometheus and Grafana. Generate multi-stage Dockerfiles for Python applications, and compose stacks with Python services. Generate Docker Compose stacks that include Redis (7-alpine) with healthchecks and resource limits. Generate Docker Compose stacks that include WordPress with MySQL.

How do I use Docker Forge MCP?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Docker Forge MCP Generate a Docker Compose for a Node.js API with PostgreSQL" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

Docker Forge MCP

by fredericsuretat

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Remote

Docker Forge MCP

Generate, audit, and tune Docker Compose stacks inside Claude Code — before you copy-paste anything.

Most DevOps work in AI assistants means prompting for a compose file, getting something almost-right, then spending 30 minutes fixing healthchecks, resource limits, and Traefik labels by hand. Docker Forge does all that before the compose file lands in your project.

Pure logic, no API keys, $0 to run.

4 tools

Tool	What it does	Tier
`generate_stack`	Generate a production-ready Docker Compose from a description	Free
`audit_compose`	Audit your compose for security & best-practice issues (scored 0-100)	Free
`add_traefik`	Generate Traefik v3 labels with middlewares	Free
`list_stacks`	List all available stack templates	Free
`generate_dockerfile`	Multi-stage, hardened Dockerfile for Node/Python/Go	Pro
`generate_env`	Extract all `${VARS}` from a compose and generate .env template	Pro

Related MCP server: Docker MCP

Quick start

npx -y docker-forge-mcp

Or add to your Claude Code MCP config:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "docker-forge": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "docker-forge-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Usage examples

Generate a stack:

"Generate a Docker Compose for a Node.js API with PostgreSQL and Redis, domain api.myapp.com"

Audit an existing compose:

"Audit this docker-compose.yml for security issues" → paste your file

Add Traefik:

"Add Traefik v3 labels for my 'backend' service on port 3000 at api.example.com with rate limiting"

Supported stacks

Stack type	Services
`node-postgres-redis`	Node.js + PostgreSQL + Redis
`node-postgres`	Node.js + PostgreSQL
`node-redis`	Node.js + Redis
`python-postgres-redis-celery`	FastAPI + PostgreSQL + Redis + Celery
`python-postgres`	FastAPI/Django + PostgreSQL
`wordpress`	WordPress + MySQL
`nextjs-postgres`	Next.js standalone + PostgreSQL
`monitoring`	Prometheus + Grafana + node-exporter
`nginx`	Nginx static server

What's in every generated stack

restart: unless-stopped on all services
deploy.resources.limits (CPU + memory) on every container
healthcheck on every service
depends_on with condition: service_healthy
Named volumes (not anonymous)
PostgreSQL pinned to 16-alpine, Redis to 7-alpine
Optional Traefik v3 labels + HTTP→HTTPS redirect

Audit checks

Critical (score -20 each): privileged mode, root user, docker socket mounted, plaintext secrets in env, database ports exposed to internet

Warning (score -5 each): missing restart policy, no resource limits, :latest image tag, no healthcheck, bare depends_on without service_healthy

Info (score -1): no network isolation, simple depends_on

Traefik middleware presets

rate-limit, security-headers (HSTS + XSS + nosniff), auth-basic, compress, redirect-https

License

MIT — frederic.suretat.com/lab

Available Tools

6 tools

add_traefikA

Generate Traefik v3 labels for a Docker service. Produces ready-to-paste labels for docker-compose.yml and a networks section. Supports TLS (Let's Encrypt), HTTP→HTTPS redirect, and optional middleware presets: rate-limit, security-headers, auth-basic, compress.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tls`	No	Enable TLS with certresolver (default: true)
`port`	Yes	Internal port the service listens on (e.g. 3000, 8000, 80)
`domain`	Yes	Public domain, e.g. "myapp.example.com"
`network`	No	External Traefik network name (default: "proxy")	proxy
`middlewares`	No	Optional middleware presets to enable
`certresolver`	No	Traefik certresolver name (default: "letsencrypt")	letsencrypt
`service_name`	Yes	Name of the Docker service (used as router/service name in Traefik)
`include_http_redirect`	No	Add HTTP→HTTPS redirect router (default: true)

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Describes outputs (labels, networks section) and supported features (TLS, redirect, middleware presets) without annotations. Does not mention potential side effects, but as a label generator, mutation is unlikely.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no wasted words.

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?

Covers generation of labels and main options. Lacks output format details, but no output schema exists. Adequate for a simple generation tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. Description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond summarizing features like TLS and middlewares, keeping score at baseline.

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?

States 'Generate Traefik v3 labels for a Docker service' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like generate_dockerfile and generate_env.

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?

Implied usage by describing output for docker-compose.yml, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use vs alternatives like audit_compose.

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

audit_composeA

Audit a Docker Compose YAML string for security vulnerabilities and best-practice violations. Checks: privileged mode, root user, docker socket mounts, plaintext secrets, exposed database ports, missing restart policies, missing resource limits, unpinned image tags, missing healthchecks, and depends_on readiness issues. Returns a score (0-100) and categorized issues (critical/warning/info).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`compose_yaml`	Yes	The full content of your docker-compose.yml file to audit

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists specific checks (e.g., privileged mode, root user) and states return format (score 0-100, categorized issues). It does not mention side effects, but the tool is read-only. The description adds value beyond schema by detailing what the tool evaluates.

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 concise (two sentences) yet packed with useful information: what it does, what it checks, and what it returns. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity (single-parameter tool with no output schema), the description fully explains inputs and outputs. It lists 10 checks and the output format (score and issues). The agent has enough context to decide and use the tool correctly.

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 schema has one required parameter 'compose_yaml' with a description. The tool description adds 'The full content of your docker-compose.yml file to audit' which reinforces that it expects the entire file. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description provides marginal additional meaning but is sufficient.

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 audits Docker Compose YAML strings for security vulnerabilities and best-practice violations. The verb 'audit' and resource 'Docker Compose YAML string' are specific. Sibling tools like generate_dockerfile and list_stacks indicate different purposes, making this tool's role distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly indicates usage: when you have a compose YAML to check. It lists detailed checks and returns a score and issues. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with siblings (e.g., use generate_dockerfile to create Dockerfiles). This is a minor gap.

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

generate_dockerfileA

[PRO] Generate an optimized, security-hardened multi-stage Dockerfile. Supports Node.js (including Next.js standalone), Python (FastAPI/Django), and Go. Features: multi-stage builds, non-root user, minimal final image, HEALTHCHECK.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`port`	No	Port the app listens on (default: 3000)
`runtime`	Yes	Runtime/language for the Dockerfile
`version`	No	Runtime version (e.g. "20" for Node.js, "3.12" for Python, "1.22" for Go)
`app_type`	No	App type hint: "nextjs" for Next.js standalone, "express" for generic Node, etc.
`package_manager`	No	Package manager for Node.js projects (default: npm)	npm

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses features like multi-stage builds, non-root user, minimal image, and HEALTHCHECK, which are positive behavioral traits. However, it does not specify whether the tool writes to a file or returns text, nor does it mention side effects or permissions needed.

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 that includes a '[PRO]' prefix for intended audience, lists the core purpose, supported technologies, and key features. Every part is meaningful and there is no redundant content. It is compact and front-loaded.

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?

Given five parameters (all described in schema) and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers supported runtimes and app types, but lacks information about the output format (e.g., returns text, saves to file), error handling, or any prerequisites. For a generation tool, these would be helpful for agents.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning supported runtimes and app types (Next.js standalone, FastAPI/Django), which aligns with the 'runtime' and 'app_type' parameters. However, it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'optimized, security-hardened multi-stage Dockerfile'. It lists supported runtimes (Node.js, Python, Go) and specific app types (Next.js, FastAPI/Django), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_traefik or audit_compose which serve different purposes.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for generating Dockerfiles for Node.js, Python, or Go projects, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling tool. The features are listed but no direct comparison.

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

generate_envA

[PRO] Extract all environment variable placeholders (${VAR}) from a Docker Compose YAML and generate a .env template file with categorized comments (database, auth/secrets, app). Includes generation hints for secrets.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`compose_yaml`	Yes	The docker-compose.yml content to extract variables from

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions generating a categorized .env template with secrets hints, giving some insight into behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies files, or requires any permissions, leaving gaps in 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with key actions. The '[PRO]' prefix is minor noise but does not detract significantly. Concise without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it produces. It explains the output's nature (categorized comments, secrets hints). No major gaps are apparent for this use case.

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% (the single parameter 'compose_yaml' is described). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's description of the parameter. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 uses specific verbs ('extract', 'generate') and clearly states the resource (env var placeholders from Docker Compose YAML) and output (a .env template with categorized comments). It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_dockerfile and generate_stack, which have different purposes.

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?

The description implies usage for extracting env vars from Docker Compose YAML but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audit_compose might also examine environment). No when-not or prerequisite information is provided, leaving room for ambiguity.

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

generate_stackA

Generate a production-ready Docker Compose stack from a natural language description or stack type. Includes security best practices: resource limits, healthchecks, restart policies, non-root users, named volumes. Optionally adds Traefik v3 labels for reverse proxy + HTTPS.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	No	Public domain for Traefik routing, e.g. "myapp.example.com". If provided, Traefik labels are added.
`db_name`	No	Database name to use (defaults to app_name)
`app_name`	No	Name for the main application service (used as container name prefix)
`stack_type`	No	Explicit stack type. Use "auto" to detect from description.	auto
`description`	No	Natural language description of what you want to build, e.g. "Node.js API with PostgreSQL and Redis cache"
`node_version`	No	Node.js version to use in image tags (default: "20")	20
`python_version`	No	Python version to use in image tags (default: "3.12")	3.12
`traefik_network`	No	External Docker network for Traefik (default: "proxy")	proxy

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions included security best practices and optional Traefik labels, but does not detail output format, error handling, or prerequisites. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two succinct sentences: first states the core purpose, second adds key feature (optional Traefik). No wasted words, front-loaded content.

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?

The description covers main functionality and key differentiators (security, Traefik). Given the high schema coverage and no output schema, it is sufficiently complete for a generation tool, though examples or output format clarification would improve it.

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 schema already documents parameters well. The description adds little beyond schema, only noting that domain triggers Traefik labels. 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 clearly states that the tool generates a Docker Compose stack from a natural language description or a specific stack type. It lists included security features and optional Traefik labels. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_dockerfile or add_traefik, which have overlapping scopes.

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?

The description implies usage when a full stack is needed but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., generate_dockerfile for a single Dockerfile). No when-not-to-use or exclusions are mentioned.

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

list_stacksA

List all available Docker Compose stack templates with descriptions and tags.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic listing action, such as safety, idempotence, or performance characteristics.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for this context.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description correctly reflects that no parameters are needed.

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 specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'Docker Compose stack templates', and mentions the return details (descriptions and tags). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing, while siblings are about adding, auditing, or generating.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The siblings are listed but no explicit when/when-not or context provided.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

6 tool updatesv0.1.0Jun 27, 2026
- First observedadd_traefik
- First observedaudit_compose
- First observedgenerate_dockerfile
- First observedgenerate_env
- First observedgenerate_stack
- First observedlist_stacks

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a unique, clearly defined purpose: Traefik labels, compose auditing, Dockerfile generation, env template extraction, stack generation, and listing templates. No functional overlap exists.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., add_traefik, audit_compose, list_stacks). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is tightly scoped to Docker/Compose utilities. Every tool addresses a distinct need; no excess and no trivial tools.

Completeness4/5

The set covers generation, auditing, and listing for common Docker workflows. Missing a tool for deploying or modifying stacks, but the existing tools handle core creation and validation tasks.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

opchain A
io.github.asfbay-bit
Claude Code / MCP skills for the dev pipeline: discover, spec, design, build, ship, operate.
Developer Tools CI/CD & DevOps Project Management
2
AI Worlds CLI Knowledge A
com.claude-world
Source-checked CLI guides and model-aware planning for Claude Code, Codex, and Grok Build.
Command Line Developer Tools Documentation Access
121
IAC Audit PackOAuth
io.github.UnbearableDev
Four IaC audits in one call: Compose, Dockerfile, GitHub Actions, Kubernetes. 131 checks.
Code Analysis Security
2
NEXUS AI
io.github.nexusrun
Deploy full-stack apps (Postgres, Redis, S3, workers, backups) from Claude or curl. 59 MCP tools.
Cloud Platforms Developer Tools CI/CD & DevOps
21

Related MCP Servers

docker-mcp
Virtualization OS Automation Developer Tools
QuantGeekDev
A
license
B
quality
F
maintenance
A powerful Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Docker operations, enabling seamless container and compose stack management through Claude AI.
Updated 2 years ago (2024-12-14 03:54 UTC)
4
500
MIT
Docker MCP
Virtualization Developer Tools Command Line
diegofornalha
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables Docker container management directly through Claude using the Model Context Protocol. Provides 14 tools for managing containers, images, volumes, and Docker Compose deployments through natural language commands.
Updated a year ago (2025-08-28 03:38 UTC)
-
Docker MCP Server
Virtualization Developer Tools
good-gis
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Enables managing Docker containers (run, list, stop, remove, view logs) through Claude Desktop using natural language commands.
Updated 9 months ago (2025-12-20 06:03 UTC)
5
186
MIT
docker-compose-mcp
Virtualization Developer Tools Command Line
Krelborn
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables Claude to manage Docker Compose containers by updating, running commands, and viewing status/logs.
Updated 10 months ago (2025-11-13 10:16 UTC)
-

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fredericsuretat/docker-forge-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server