Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coolify-mcp

coolify-mcp

by 0xtlt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

coolify_update_application_preview

[WRITE] Replace preview deployment domains (Coolify v4.3.23). Provide domains for a regular app or docker_compose_domains for a Compose app.

Instructions

[WRITE] Replace preview deployment domains (Coolify v4.3.23). Provide domains for a regular app or docker_compose_domains for a Compose app.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYesUUID of the parent application
domainsNoReplace regular preview domains; null clears them. Mutually exclusive with docker_compose_domains.
pull_request_idYesPull request number of the preview
force_domain_overrideNoAllow domain conflicts with other resources
docker_compose_domainsNoReplace Compose preview domains by service name; [] clears them. Mutually exclusive with domains.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv4.3.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / docker_compose_domains / items / properties / domain / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / docker_compose_domains / items / properties / domain / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / domains / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / domains / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / pull_request_id / maximum
      Previous value: -9007199254740991New value: +2147483647
  2. Addedv4.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses the write/mutation nature and that domains are replaced, but omits permissions, conflict behavior (force_domain_override), clearing semantics, and side effects.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the write flag and purpose front-loaded. No filler; the version tag is minor and does not distract.

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?

Given the mutation, no annotations, no output schema, and rich input schema, the description is too thin on side effects and prerequisites. It covers the core action but leaves the agent to infer permission and conflict behavior.

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 already documents all five parameters, including mutual exclusivity and null-clearing behavior. The description adds a high-level rule for choosing domains vs docker_compose_domains, but is largely redundant.

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 specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('preview deployment domains'), and flags the write nature with '[WRITE]'. It implicitly differentiates from application-wide updates via 'preview', though it does not name a sibling.

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 choose this tool over siblings like coolify_update_application or coolify_list_application_previews. The sentence about domains vs docker_compose_domains is parameter selection guidance, not tool-level usage.

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