Coolify Creation MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

plan_public_repository_application

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validates a public Git repository application and previews its Coolify creation request without writing, checking project, environment, server, destination, and duplicate names.

Instructions

Validate a public Git repository 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>"
    },
    "name": "plan_public_repository_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
`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?

The description adds real context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it is a non-writing dry run that surfaces a would-be creation request and enumerates the checks performed (project/environment, server/destination, duplicate names). It does not cover the returned shape, but the 'show its creation request' phrasing communicates output intent.

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?

Two dense sentences with the non-writing constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately short, though brevity here comes at the cost of the missing parameter detail.

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 23-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description leaves most inputs unexplained and says nothing about the shape of the returned creation request. An agent can grasp the tool's purpose but not how to populate the majority of the schema.

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 23 parameters, so the description must carry semantics and it largely does not. It only names the build-pack families and the entities validated; build_command, start_command, ports_exposes, domains, redirect, docker_compose_domains, is_spa, autogenerate_domain and others are left 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?

States a specific verb (validate/plan) and resource (public Git repository application, i.e. a dry-run creation request), with the additional scope of what gets checked. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the create_public_repository_application sibling by saying 'without writing', though it never names it directly.

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?

'without writing' hints this is a pre-flight check to run before create_public_repository_application, but the alternative is never named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance among the many plan_* siblings.

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

Deploy Server