Skip to main content
Glama
0xtlt

coolify-mcp

by 0xtlt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

coolify_create_service_storage

Add persistent or file storage mounts to a Coolify service sub-resource. Configure type, mount path, and storage options in one call.

Instructions

[WRITE] Add a persistent or file storage mount to a Coolify service sub-resource

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoVolume name (required for persistent storages)
typeYesStorage type: persistent volume or file mount
uuidYesUUID of the service
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)
resource_uuidYesUUID of the service application or database sub-resource

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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only labels the operation as [WRITE] and states the resource type, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing mounts are affected), permission requirements, or reversibility. The description adds minimal behavior context beyond the explicit action verb.

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?

One sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the write indicator. Highly efficient and appropriately concise for a tool with a relatively clear action.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters, conditional requirements (e.g., `name` required for persistent, `fs_path` for file), and no output schema or annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the relationship between parameters, required combinations, or behavioral expectations, leaving an agent with significant gaps when deciding how to invoke it correctly.

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 all parameters already have descriptions. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond indicating 'persistent or file storage mount', which echoes the `type` enum already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles full parameter documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the action (Add) and the resource (storage mount to a Coolify service sub-resource), with specificity that distinguishes it from sibling tools operating on application or database storage. It is a precise verb-object construction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative storage creation tools (e.g., coolify_create_application_storage or coolify_create_database_storage). The description does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or decision criteria for choosing persistent vs file storage.

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