Coolify Creation MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

plan_github_app_application

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a private Git repository via GitHub App and preview its Coolify application creation request without writing, checking project, environment, server, destination, and duplicate names.

Instructions

Validate a private Git repository through a GitHub App 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>",
      "github_app_uuid": "<github_app_uuid>"
    },
    "name": "plan_github_app_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
`github_app_uuid`	Yes
`install_command`	No
`destination_uuid`	No
`environment_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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds genuine value by disclosing that it performs validation, that it checks project/environment, server/destination and duplicate names, and that nothing is persisted. It stops short of saying what happens on validation failure.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, then the validation checks and supported build packs. No filler, though the build-pack sentence is arguably the least essential for choosing the tool.

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?

For a 24-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is thin: it doesn't explain the shape of the returned 'creation request', which the agent needs to interpret the result, nor how validation failures surface. The behavioral gist is there, but the coverage of a very large schema is inadequate.

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?

With 24 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning, yet it explains only the build_pack enum values in passing. Required fields like project_uuid, server_uuid, environment_uuid, github_app_uuid, git_repository and git_branch get no explanation, and optional params like is_spa, redirect, ports_exposes, docker_compose_domains are untouched.

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+resource (validate a private Git repo via GitHub App application, show creation request) and the 'without writing' clause cleanly separates it from create_github_app_application. Sibling differentiation is implicit in 'plan' vs 'create' but never stated explicitly.

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 phrase 'show its creation request without writing' implies this is a pre-flight/dry-run step, but the description never names create_github_app_application or states 'call this before creating'. An agent must infer the workflow from the tool 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