Coolify Creation MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

plan_deploy_key_application

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a private Git repository deploy-key application and preview its creation request without writing, checking project, environment, server, destination, and duplicate names first.

Instructions

Validate a private Git repository through a deploy key application and show its creation request without writing. Checks project/environment, server/destination, and duplicate names. Git sources support Nixpacks, Railpack, static, Dockerfile, and Docker Compose builds.

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": {
      "project_uuid": "<project_uuid>",
      "server_uuid": "<server_uuid>",
      "environment_uuid": "<environment_uuid>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "git_repository": "<git_repository>",
      "git_branch": "<git_branch>",
      "build_pack": "<build_pack>",
      "private_key_uuid": "<private_key_uuid>"
    },
    "name": "plan_deploy_key_application"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`is_spa`	No
`domains`	No
`redirect`	No	both
`is_static`	No
`build_pack`	Yes
`git_branch`	Yes
`server_uuid`	Yes
`project_uuid`	Yes
`build_command`	No
`ports_exposes`	No	80
`start_command`	No
`base_directory`	No	/
`git_repository`	Yes
`install_command`	No
`destination_uuid`	No
`environment_uuid`	Yes
`private_key_uuid`	Yes
`publish_directory`	No
`autogenerate_domain`	No
`dockerfile_location`	No
`health_check_enabled`	No
`docker_compose_domains`	No
`docker_compose_location`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it validates project/environment, server/destination, and duplicate names, and returns a creation request without writing. It does not describe auth requirements or return format, but with annotations present this is solid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and no-write behavior, followed by validation checks and supported build packs. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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?

This is a complex 24-parameter planning tool with no output schema. The description says it shows a creation request but does not explain the returned shape or document many parameters. Annotations cover safety, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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% across 24 parameters. The description adds high-level context for project/environment/server/destination and lists build_pack values, but leaves most parameters undocumented, including domains, redirect, is_spa, is_static, build/start/install commands, directories, private_key_uuid, and docker-compose-specific fields. With low coverage, it should compensate far more.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: validate a private Git repository through a deploy key application and show the creation request without writing. The no-write scope distinguishes it from create_deploy_key_application, but it does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast with other plan_* tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies use for validation/planning of private deploy-key applications and excludes public repository scenarios. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus create_deploy_key_application or other plan tools, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server