Skip to main content
Glama

Coolify: Get deployment

coolify_get_deployment
Read-only

Fetch details of a specific Coolify deployment by UUID and site to inspect its status and configuration.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Get details of a specific deployment by UUID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "coolify_get_deployment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
uuidYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description needs to add operational context such as error behavior for an unknown UUID or whether a missing deployment returns null versus failing. It adds none of that, and the '[UNIFIED]' marker is unexplained jargon that conveys no behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding and no redundant restatement of the title. The bracketed '[UNIFIED]' tag is the one element that adds tokens without adding meaning.

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 two-required-parameter tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin: it leaves 'site' undefined and gives no sense of what the returned deployment details contain. Only the identifier semantics are partially covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, but it only glosses 'uuid' as the deployment identifier. The required 'site' parameter is never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess whether it is an identifier, a hostname, or an instance selector.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve details of a single deployment, scoped to one UUID. That clearly separates it from write siblings such as coolify_cancel_deployment. It does not, however, explain the '[UNIFIED]' prefix or contrast it with any listing tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative for discovering deployments when the UUID is unknown. The phrase 'by UUID' only weakly implies that an identifier must already be in hand, and the description never says where to obtain it or what to do otherwise.

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