coolify-mcp

Update database

updateDatabase

Idempotent

Update a database's configuration by UUID: change its name, image, public visibility, public port, or pass extra Coolify fields. Apply precise settings changes directly to an existing database.

Instructions

Update a database's configuration by UUID. Common fields are exposed; any other Coolify database field can go in extra.

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": "updateDatabase"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`uuid`	Yes
`extra`	No	Additional Coolify database fields
`image`	No
`is_public`	No
`description`	No
`public_port`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.5Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true. The description adds context about the 'extra' catch-all parameter, which aligns with the openWorld hint, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like side effects or prerequisites. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then clarifies the extensibility mechanism.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (7 parameters, no output schema). The description is clear enough to use, but it does not explain whether updates are partial or full, what happens on update, or any prerequisites. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, so the description is minimally complete for basic usage.

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 only 14% (only 'extra' has a description). The description says 'Common fields are exposed' but does not enumerate or explain those fields (name, image, is_public, etc.). It introduces 'extra' as a catch-all, but this only minimally compensates for the lack of parameter details.

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 clearly states 'Update a database's configuration by UUID', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like updateApplication or updateService by targeting databases specifically.

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 description mentions that 'Common fields are exposed; any other Coolify database field can go in extra', giving some usage guidance but not explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It does not mention when to avoid this tool or use controlDatabase or deleteDatabase instead.

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

Deploy Server