coolify-mcp

Delete application

deleteApplication

Destructive

Remove an application by UUID while optionally deleting its volumes, configurations, and connected networks.

Instructions

Delete an application by UUID. Optionally delete volumes, configurations, and connected networks.

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": {
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "deleteApplication"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uuid`	Yes
`delete_volumes`	No
`docker_cleanup`	No
`delete_configurations`	No
`delete_connected_networks`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description need not restate that. It adds value by naming the resources that can be deleted, but it says 'optionally' while schema defaults are true, meaning they are deleted by default. This mismatch reduces transparency about the actual default behavior.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the core action and then enumerates optional deletions. No redundancy or filler, every word contributes to understanding.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It covers the main action and some optional resources but omits docker_cleanup and does not describe response behavior or reversibility. Given the destructive nature and multiple flags, more context would be valuable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers uuid, delete_volumes, delete_configurations, and delete_connected_networks implicitly, but docker_cleanup is not mentioned. It also does not clarify that the boolean parameters default to true, leaving ambiguity about parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is specific: 'Delete an application by UUID.' It clearly states the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like updateApplication or stopApplication. Mentioning optional deletion of volumes, configurations, and networks further clarifies the scope.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's name and the context of application management, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. No exclusions are given, but it is obvious for a delete operation.

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

Deploy Server