[WRITE] Update the team bound to the API token (Coolify v4.4+). Sets whether builds fall back to the deployment server when no build server is usable.
[WRITE] Update the team bound to the API token (Coolify v4.4+). Sets whether builds fall back to the deployment server when no build server is usable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| is_build_server_fallback_enabled | Yes | Build on the deployment server when no build server is usable |
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 does mark the operation as a write and identifies the exact setting changed, but it omits permissions, side effects, and return behavior.
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?
Two short sentences, with the write marker and target resource front-loaded. Every sentence contributes to identifying the operation and its effect.
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 one-parameter boolean mutation with no output schema, the description gives sufficient context to call the tool correctly: target resource, version constraint, and setting controlled. It could be stronger on permission or response behavior, but the core call context is present.
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 the single parameter is already documented. The description mirrors the schema meaning of the fallback flag without adding format or behavioral detail beyond the schema.
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 and resource: update the team bound to the API token, and narrows it to the build-server fallback setting. It is clearly distinct from sibling read tools such as coolify_get_current_team and coolify_list_teams.
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 when this tool is relevant by naming the fallback setting it controls, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of read alternatives or list any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.