coolify-mcp

Get logs

getLogs

Read-only

Fetch runtime logs for an application by UUID to diagnose issues. Specify line count and timestamps to view the relevant output.

Instructions

Fetch runtime logs for an application.

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": "getLogs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uuid`	Yes
`lines`	No
`show_timestamps`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.6Aug 28, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / show_timestamps
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
First observedv0.1.4Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already communicate the safety profile, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'runtime.' It does not mention log formats, ordering, whether logs are truncated, or authentication requirements. For a read operation with annotations present, more context would still be valuable.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it is also too sparse for a three-parameter 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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves significant gaps: how logs are returned, what the parameters mean, and how this tool relates to similar diagnostics. For a simple tool this is still below the minimum viable level of completeness.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not explain uuid, lines, or show_timestamps. The phrase 'for an application' hints that uuid likely identifies an application, but no explicit parameter semantics are provided.

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 description states a clear verb and resource: 'Fetch runtime logs for an application.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools focused on deployments, applications, and services, though it does not explicitly name any direct alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance about when to use getLogs versus alternatives or any stated exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and short description, so an agent must infer the use case.

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

Deploy Server