listResourcesList Coolify resources with pagination, summary, and filters to locate applications, databases, and services by type or status.
List Coolify resources with optional pagination, summary, and filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| summary | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. However, it adds no behavioral details beyond what the schema implies, such as default pagination, response shape, or whether all resource types are included.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, accurately conveying the core function and mentioning optional features. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and 5 undocumented parameters, the description is too skeletal. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how filters work, or how this tool relates to the many resource-specific list tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only groups parameters into vague categories ('pagination', 'filters', 'summary') without mapping them to actual parameter names or explaining allowed values, which is insufficient for 5 undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('Coolify resources'), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools that list specific resource types such as listApplications or listDatabases. The meaning of 'resources' is somewhat ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools. It doesn't mention that this is a general resource list or that specific tools exist for particular resource types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.