Skip to main content
Glama
0xtlt

coolify-mcp

by 0xtlt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

coolify_delete_server

[DESTRUCTIVE] Permanently delete a server and stop all its resources

Instructions

[DESTRUCTIVE] Permanently delete a server and stop all its resources

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYesUUID of the resource
forceNoForce delete even if server has running resources
confirmNoSet to true to confirm this destructive operation
delete_from_providerNoAlso delete the machine at Hetzner, Vultr, or DigitalOcean (Coolify v4.4+; needs a cloud token of the team)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv4.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / delete_from_provider
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Also delete the machine at Hetzner, Vultr, or DigitalOcean (Coolify v4.4+; needs a cloud token of the team)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv4.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does usefully flag irreversibility ("[DESTRUCTIVE]", "Permanently") and the cascading stop of hosted resources. However it says nothing about the confirm flag requirement, the force bypass, or that delete_from_provider invokes external cloud APIs, all of which matter for a destructive call.

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 compact sentence with the destructive warning front-loaded in brackets. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

For a destructive, unannotated tool the description covers permanence and the resource cascade, and the schema covers parameters thoroughly. Still missing is any mention of confirmation requirements or the external-provider side effect, which an agent needs before invoking.

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 uuid, force, confirm, and delete_from_provider are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the structured fields provide, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Permanently delete a server") plus the cascade consequence ("stop all its resources"). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like coolify_delete_application or coolify_delete_database by the server resource, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 versus coolify_update_server, coolify_delete_application, or other delete variants, and no stated prerequisites such as needing the server stopped or a provider token. The agent must infer when deletion is appropriate.

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