Skip to main content
Glama
0xtlt

coolify-mcp

by 0xtlt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

coolify_create_database_storage

Add persistent volume or file storage mounts to a Coolify database by specifying its UUID, mount path, and storage type, ensuring data persistence.

Instructions

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoVolume name (required for persistent storages)
typeYesStorage type: persistent volume or file mount
uuidYesUUID of the database
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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes '[WRITE]' hinting at mutation, but does not mention prerequisites, side effects, reversibility, or any consequences of the operation. For a create operation, this is minimal disclosure.

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 no unnecessary words. The [WRITE] marker and the action are immediately clear, and every word earns its place.

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 description is minimal but sufficient for a create operation when the schema already details parameters. However, it does not explain the difference between storage types or conditional parameter usage (which the schema handles), and it lacks guidance on usage context beyond the database scope.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters with descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for tools with full schema coverage.

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 states a clear action: 'Add' a 'persistent or file storage mount' to a 'Coolify database'. This precisely identifies the verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from similar storage tools for applications and services (e.g., coolify_create_application_storage). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 database usage but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for when to use this over coolify_create_application_storage or coolify_create_service_storage. No exclusions or alternatives are given, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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