Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Coolify: List app deployments

coolify_list_app_deployments
Read-only

Retrieve deployment history for a specific application to review past releases and statuses, with skip/take pagination for browsing results.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] List deployment history for a specific application.

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_list_app_deployments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
skipNo
takeNo
uuidYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, so the description needs to add behavioral detail such as ordering, pagination limits, or what 'history' includes. It adds only the scoping to a specific application and says nothing about pagination behavior despite skip/take parameters, default limits, or result ordering.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. However, the terseness borders on under-specification for a four-parameter tool, and the '[UNIFIED]' token is unexplained clutter.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation anywhere, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what site and uuid must contain, how pagination behaves, or what a deployment record looks like.

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

Parameters1/5

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 burden for all four parameters, including the required site and uuid. It mentions no parameters at all and gives no hint about what skip and take control or what site identifies, leaving every input undocumented in both places.

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: 'List deployment history for a specific application.' An agent can tell it retrieves deployment records scoped to one application, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling coolify_list_deployments, and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds no meaning.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus coolify_list_deployments or coolify_cancel_deployment, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and title alone.

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