Get the status of a service database import (Coolify v4.4+). output needs the read:sensitive token ability.
Get the status of a service database import (Coolify v4.4+). output needs the read:sensitive token ability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | UUID of the service | |
| activity_id | Yes | Import ID returned when the import was started | |
| database_uuid | Yes | UUID of the database inside the service |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the required read:sensitive token ability and version constraint, and 'Get the status' implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe side effects, rate limits, or return behavior in detail.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the version and authorization requirement.
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?
The three required parameters are fully described in the schema, and the description adds useful version and authorization context. However, for a status-retrieval tool with no output schema, it does not indicate what status values or return shape the agent should expect.
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%, and all three required parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?
The description states a specific verb (Get) and resource (status of a service database import), and explicitly scopes it to Coolify v4.4+ service-level database imports. This distinguishes it from the sibling database-level import status tool and from the import-starting tools.
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?
The description implies usage by saying it gets import status, and the required activity_id suggests it is called after an import has started. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus coolify_get_database_import or coolify_import_service_database, nor does it state prerequisites beyond the token ability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.