Coolify Creation MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

plan_dockerfile_application

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validates an inline Dockerfile application and previews its Coolify creation request without writing, checking project, environment, server, destination, and duplicate names.

Instructions

Validate a inline Dockerfile 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>",
      "dockerfile": "<dockerfile>"
    },
    "name": "plan_dockerfile_application"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`domains`	No
`redirect`	No		both
`dockerfile`	Yes	Plain UTF-8 Dockerfile content; the server base64-encodes it for Coolify.
`server_uuid`	Yes
`project_uuid`	Yes
`ports_exposes`	No		80
`destination_uuid`	No
`environment_uuid`	Yes
`autogenerate_domain`	No
`health_check_enabled`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description adds real value by enumerating what gets validated (project/environment, server/destination, duplicate names). It does not describe the shape of the returned 'creation request' despite there being no output schema, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three compact sentences with the no-write guarantee and the validation scope front-loaded, so an agent gets the key constraint immediately. The closing sentence about Git sources is slightly off-topic for an inline-Dockerfile tool and reads as boilerplate carried over from sibling definitions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter planning tool with no output schema, the description explains intent and validation coverage but never characterizes the 'creation request' payload that is the tool's actual output. Combined with five unmentioned optional parameters, an agent can call it but cannot predict what it returns.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 9% across 11 parameters, so the description carries most of the burden; it partially compensates by naming the project/environment, server/destination and name-uniqueness checks. However, domains, redirect, ports_exposes, autogenerate_domain and health_check_enabled get no mention anywhere, leaving nearly half the surface undocumented.

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 definition uses a specific verb ('Validate... and show its creation request without writing') on a specific resource ('inline Dockerfile application'), which is clearly distinct from the create_dockerfile_application sibling by the explicit 'without writing' scope. It stops short of naming that sibling outright, so the contrast is inferential rather than stated.

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?

The dry-run intent is implied by 'without writing' and 'show its creation request', which suggests pre-flight use before a create call, but no alternative is ever named and there is no explicit when-not guidance. An agent must infer that create_dockerfile_application is the follow-up from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server