list_projectsRetrieve all Coolify projects and their associated environments, such as production or staging, to identify deployment contexts at a glance.
List Coolify projects with their environments (e.g. production, staging).
| 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds that projects are returned with their environment names, but it does not disclose pagination, sorting, or response shape beyond that.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and output detail are all present and every element earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with open-world semantics, this description is sufficient. It states what is returned and the annotations cover safety, so an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly without missing critical context.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema documents this completely with 100% coverage. With no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics; the environment mention is a useful extra but not required.
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 uses the specific verb 'List', names the resource 'Coolify projects', and specifies that output includes environments such as production/staging. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools by resource type.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over list_applications, list_servers, or list_envs, nor any 'when not to use' note. The resource name implies its purpose, but the description leaves the comparison to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.