get_versionCheck Coolify connectivity and retrieve version, health status, API base URL, and read-only mode. Use this first to diagnose tool failures.
Check connectivity: returns the Coolify version, the health endpoint result, the API base URL in use and whether this MCP server is read-only / allows revealing secrets. Call this first when other tools fail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't contradict them. It adds value by mentioning that it reveals whether the server is read-only and whether secrets are allowed to be revealed, which is not evident from annotations alone. However, it doesn't detail what specific endpoints are hit or potential side effects (though read-only), so a slight gap remains.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Check connectivity') and then lists the key return values concisely. It also includes the usage guidance in the same sentence, making it extremely efficient with no wasted words.
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?
Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is fully complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to call it. The agent knows it returns version/health/base URL and read-only status, and the usage context is clear.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description need not explain any. The schema is empty with 100% coverage (effectively), and the description accurately states there are no inputs needed. This baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools is justified because the description doesn't introduce any confusion and is consistent with 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking connectivity and returning version, health, base URL, and read-only/secret-reveal status. It is distinct from sibling tools, which are all focused on specific resources or actions, while this one is a meta/connectivity check.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call this tool first when other tools fail, providing a clear 'when to use' directive. It also conveys that it is a preliminary diagnostic tool, effectively differentiating it from the resource-specific siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.