list_servicesList all Coolify services with names, UUIDs, types, statuses, and project/environment. Filter by name substring to find specific services.
List one-click / docker-compose services (name, uuid, type, status, project/environment).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Case-insensitive substring matched against name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already convey readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the returned fields but no further behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, limits, or error behavior, which is acceptable for a simple read-only list.
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 concise sentence with the core action front-loaded. Every word contributes to defining scope and output without unnecessary filler.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description names the returned fields, and the annotations cover safety and world-interaction context, so it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 only parameter, filter, is fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource, 'List one-click / docker-compose services', and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as list_applications and list_databases.
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?
The resource scope is implied by the description, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_applications or list_databases. There are no exclusions, fallbacks, or conditions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.