Skip to main content
Glama
0xtlt

coolify-mcp

by 0xtlt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

coolify_create_application_storage

Add persistent or file storage mounts to a Coolify application by providing the app UUID, storage type, and container mount path.

Instructions

[WRITE] Add a persistent or file storage mount to a Coolify application

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoVolume name (required for persistent storages)
typeYesStorage type: persistent volume or file mount
uuidYesUUID of the application
contentNoFile content (file storages only)
fs_pathNoHost path (required with is_directory or is_host_file)
host_pathNoUnsupported by current Coolify; use type=file with fs_path instead
mount_pathYesContainer mount path (e.g. /data)
is_directoryNoWhether this is a directory mount (file only)
is_host_fileNoMount an existing host file (type=file, requires fs_path)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv4.1.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / fs_path / description
      Previous value: -"Host directory path (required when is_directory is true)"New value: +"Host path (required with is_directory or is_host_file)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / host_path / description
      Previous value: -"Host path (persistent only, optional)"New value: +"Unsupported by current Coolify; use type=file with fs_path instead"
    • addedInput schema / properties / is_host_file
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Mount an existing host file (type=file, requires fs_path)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv4.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The '[WRITE]' tag and 'Add' signal mutation, but nothing is said about prerequisites, side effects, reversibility, or what happens with different storage types. This is a thin disclosure for a create operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with the '[WRITE]' marker and a clear action/resource pair. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has nine parameters and conditional field interactions, and there is no output schema or annotations. However, the schema's per-field descriptions are unusually thorough, covering file-only fields, unsupported host_path, and requirements like fs_path with is_directory/is_host_file. The description itself is too sparse to explain return values or prerequisites, but the overall definition is adequate for invocation.

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 all nine parameters, including conditional requirements like name being required for persistent storages. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the rich schema, but it also doesn't highlight the most important conditional logic.

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 opens with '[WRITE]' and uses the specific verb 'Add' with a concrete object ('persistent or file storage mount') and target ('Coolify application'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling storage tools for services/databases and from update/list/delete storage tools.

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 verb 'Add' and the phrase 'to a Coolify application' imply this tool is for creating new storage mounts on an application, as opposed to updating or listing them. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is only implicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools