Coolify MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between list-applications and list-resources, as list-resources includes applications along with other resources, which could cause confusion about which to use for listing applications. The application lifecycle tools (start, stop, restart, update) are clearly differentiated from each other and from retrieval tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb-noun pattern using kebab-case, such as deploy, get-application, list-applications, restart-application, etc. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand, with no deviations in naming conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the count is well-scoped for managing applications and resources in a deployment platform like Coolify. Each tool serves a clear purpose, covering deployment, retrieval, listing, and lifecycle management without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides strong coverage for application management, including CRUD-like operations (deploy, get, update, start/stop/restart) and listing functions. However, there are minor gaps, such as no tools for creating or deleting databases or services, which might be expected in a full resource management suite, though the focus seems to be on applications.
Average 3.2/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('deploy') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's destructive, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'force rebuild' in the schema hints at potential side effects, but the description doesn't elaborate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that efficiently state the tool's purpose and high-level usage. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like what 'deploy' entails (e.g., rollout strategy, downtime), expected outcomes, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools like update-application, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'tag or UUID' and the purpose of deployment, but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., tag vs. uuid, when force is needed) beyond what the schema provides.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('deploy') and target ('application or service'), and specifies the mechanism ('using a tag or UUID') and purpose ('deploy new versions or updates'). It distinguishes from siblings like restart/start/stop by focusing on deployment rather than lifecycle management, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with update-application.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update-application or restart-application. It mentions deploying 'new versions or updates' but doesn't clarify when deployment is preferred over updating, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'initiates the application' but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the application is already running, whether it's idempotent, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and outcome. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary elaboration, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more structured guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'makes it available for use' means operationally, what happens on failure, or what the agent should expect as a result. Given the complexity of starting applications and the lack of structured behavioral data, more context is needed.
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% with the single parameter 'uuid' documented as 'Resource UUID'. The description adds that it's for 'a specific application using its UUID', which provides context about what type of resource this UUID refers to, but doesn't offer additional syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and target resource ('a specific application using its UUID'), with the outcome ('initiates the application and makes it available for use'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'stop-application' or 'restart-application' by specifying the start action, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'deploy' or 'update-application' which might also initiate applications.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deploy', 'restart-application', or 'update-application'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., application must be stopped), exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions modifying behavior and monitoring settings but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are immediate or require redeploy, what happens to unspecified settings (partial vs. full updates), or error handling for invalid inputs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. The second sentence adds useful context about behavior and monitoring. No redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for key settings).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, response format, and error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
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 50% (only 'uuid' has a description). The description adds context by specifying 'health check configurations' and 'monitoring settings', which helps interpret the 'settings' object parameters. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., what 'health_check_scheme' expects) or constraints beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('settings of a specific application'), with specific examples ('health check configurations'). It distinguishes from siblings like get-application (read) and restart/start/stop-application (state changes), though not explicitly named.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the application UUID from get-application or list-applications), nor does it clarify if this is for configuration versus operational changes like restart-application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this fetches a list but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns all applications at once (vs paginated), what fields are included, if it requires authentication, or potential rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that directly state what the tool does. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning it's a read-only operation or contrasting with siblings.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains (e.g., application names, IDs, statuses), how results are formatted, or any limitations. For a list tool with multiple siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary detail.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch a list') and resource ('applications currently managed by Coolify'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get-application' or 'list-deployments', which would require more specific scope clarification.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-application' (for details of a single application) or 'list-deployments' (for deployment history). It mentions 'overview of all deployed applications' but doesn't specify use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving details about 'deployment status and history', which adds some context beyond basic listing. However, it fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a deployment system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently add context about included details. There is no wasted text, and it avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavioral details, preventing a perfect score.
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 tool's complexity (listing deployments likely involves dynamic data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and hints at returned details, but it omits information about output format, error handling, or system constraints, which are important for an agent to use it effectively in a deployment context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is applied, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps in schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve a list') and resource ('all running deployments in Coolify'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-applications' or 'list-services' by focusing on deployments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools beyond scope, preventing a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-applications' or 'list-resources', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for viewing deployments but lacks explicit context or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the scope ('all services') but lacks details on permissions, pagination, rate limits, or response format. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It uses minimal words to convey the essential information, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned list looks like (e.g., structure, fields), behavioral aspects like ordering or filtering, or how it fits with sibling tools, leaving gaps for agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given no parameters exist, aligning with the baseline of 4 for 0 params.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve a list') and resource ('all services managed by Coolify'), specifying it includes both external services and microservices. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-applications' or 'list-resources' beyond the resource type.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-applications' or 'list-resources'. The description only states what it does without context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('halts the application and makes it unavailable'), which implies a destructive mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the stop is reversible, side effects on related resources, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and effect without unnecessary details. Every sentence contributes essential information, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, reversibility), usage context, and expected outcomes, which are critical for safe and effective tool invocation.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'uuid' documented as 'Resource UUID.' The description adds minimal value by specifying 'using its UUID,' which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional meaning like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema already covers.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Stop'), target resource ('a specific application'), and method ('using its UUID'), with the effect 'halts the application and makes it unavailable.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'start-application' and 'restart-application' by specifying the stop action.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'restart-application' or 'update-application' is provided. The description implies usage for stopping an application but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool retrieves but doesn't describe format, pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'comprehensive' means operationally. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and scope. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides clarifying examples. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit differentiation from siblings.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what's retrieved but not how it's returned (format, structure, limitations). For a list tool without output schema, more detail about return values would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool does rather than inputs. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('list of all resources managed by Coolify'), with specific examples of what's included (applications, services, databases, deployments). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-applications' or 'list-databases', but the comprehensive scope is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for getting a broad overview of all resources, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. more specific sibling tools like 'list-applications' or 'list-databases'. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves detailed information including status, configuration, and deployment details, which adds behavioral context beyond the basic 'get' operation. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid UUID), rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by specifics on what information is included. Every sentence earns its place by adding clarity without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and efficient.
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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks an output schema, so it should ideally hint at the return structure (e.g., JSON object with fields), and with no annotations, it misses safety or performance details. It covers the basics but could be more comprehensive.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'uuid' fully documented as 'Resource UUID'. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the UUID usage but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples (e.g., UUID v4) or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific application', specifying it uses a UUID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-applications' by focusing on a single application rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'update-application' beyond the retrieval vs. update distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need detailed info for a specific application by UUID, suggesting an alternative to 'list-applications' for bulk listing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., vs. 'list-deployments' for deployment-specific info) or prerequisites like needing a valid UUID. The context is clear but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'stops and then starts the application, applying any configuration changes,' which indicates a destructive mutation process. However, it lacks details on permissions required, potential downtime, error handling, or side effects, leaving significant gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and efficiently explain the process and purpose without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, effects, or return values, which are important for such a tool. It meets the minimum viable standard but has clear gaps.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'uuid' documented as 'Resource UUID.' The description adds context by specifying that it's for 'a specific application,' but this does not significantly enhance the parameter's meaning beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the specific action ('restart'), the resource ('a specific application'), and the method ('using its UUID'), with the additional detail that it 'stops and then starts the application, applying any configuration changes.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'start-application' and 'stop-application' by specifying the combined action and purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to apply configuration changes to an application, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start-application' or 'stop-application' individually, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's behavior as fetching a list for overview purposes, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'overview' specifically entails.
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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place - the first states the action, the second adds context about the output's purpose.
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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't describe the return format, what fields are included in the list, or any limitations on the data returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents the empty input structure.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Fetch a list') and resource ('all databases managed by Coolify'), distinguishing it from siblings like list-applications or list-services. It explicitly identifies what resource type is being listed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('provides an overview') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list-resources or get-application. No explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![coolify-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/StuMason/coolify-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/StuMason/coolify-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![coolify-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/StuMason/coolify-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/StuMason/coolify-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/StuMason/coolify-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server