List available Docker image tags for an application to identify rollback candidates, showing the current tag and all deployable versions.
List available Docker images for rolling back an application. Returns current tag and available image tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| application_uuid | Yes | Application UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Returns current tag and available image tags', which is useful output context but not a behavioral trait like side effects or permissions. No additional behavioral disclosures are provided beyond the annotations.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key return information. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or padding.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns ('current tag and available image tags'). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema provides a description for application_uuid ('Application UUID') with 100% coverage. The description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already handles its meaning. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'List available Docker images for rolling back an application', using the specific verb 'List' and resource 'Docker images for rolling back'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like coolify_rollback_application, which actually performs the rollback, and other list operations.
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?
The phrase 'for rolling back an application' implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention that coolify_rollback_application would be the follow-up action. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so usage guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.