List domains associated with a Coolify server using its UUID. Retrieve all domain names linked to a server to review or manage its web configurations.
List domains associated with a server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server_uuid | Yes | Server 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, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as return format or pagination, but does not contradict annotations. With annotations present, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 simple, read-only tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool returns (a list of domains) and the input scope (a server). No output schema exists, but the nature of the tool makes the return value obvious. The description is sufficient for the tool's complexity.
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 schema covers the only parameter (server_uuid) with a clear description ('Server UUID'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description itself does not add semantic detail beyond referencing the server, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema is self-sufficient.
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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('domains') with an explicit scope ('associated with a server'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_servers or list_server_resources, which target different resources.
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 description makes the tool's purpose clear but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Its usage is implied: to retrieve domains for a specific server. No exclusions or alternative references are given, so it does not fully meet a 'clear context with exclusions' standard.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.