[DESTRUCTIVE] Permanently delete a Coolify service
[DESTRUCTIVE] Permanently delete a Coolify service
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | UUID of the resource | |
| confirm | No | Set to true to confirm this destructive operation | |
| delete_volumes | No | Also delete associated volumes | |
| docker_cleanup | No | Clean up Docker resources | |
| delete_from_coolify_only | No | Remove the service from Coolify and leave its Docker resources on the server (Coolify v4.4+) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Input schema / properties / delete_from_coolify_onlyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Remove the service from Coolify and leave its Docker resources on the server (Coolify v4.4+)",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose irreversibility ('Permanently'). However, it omits key behavioral details the agent needs: that a confirm flag gates execution, and that by default associated volumes and Docker resources are also destroyed unless the boolean params are changed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with the critical warning front-loaded in brackets; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse given the tool's destructive, five-parameter nature, but it is not padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive, multi-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least flag the confirm requirement and the default destruction of volumes/Docker resources. It leaves the agent to discover those from the schema alone, which is a meaningful gap for an irreversible operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including confirm, delete_volumes, docker_cleanup, and delete_from_coolify_only is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('delete a Coolify service'), and the DESTRUCTIVE tag plus 'Permanently' makes the intent unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like coolify_delete_application and coolify_delete_database by naming the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with coolify_delete_service_storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as coolify_delete_application or coolify_delete_service_storage, and no mention that the 'confirm' flag must be set to true for the operation to proceed. The only implicit cue is the destructive warning, which is not the same as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.