Skip to main content
Glama

vibedeploy

by be.vibedeploy

Multi-file find/replace in one call

apply_edits
Destructive

Apply find/replace edits across MANY files in one tool call. Batch sibling of update_file_content. Per-file edit semantics identical (count: 1 default, -1 = all, positive int asserts exact count). Whole call is atomic across files: validation runs first, writes only proceed if every edit's count check passes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
filesYesFiles + edits to apply. Up to 25 files / 200 total edits per call. All-or-nothing: if any edit's match count differs from its expected count, NOTHING is written.
targetNoTree to edit, dist (default) or source. Same tree applies to every file in this call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
filesYes
siteIdYes
targetYes
warningsNoSecret-scanner findings in the rewritten files that did not block the call. Malicious content blocks the whole call with MALICIOUS_CONTENT instead.
request_idNoServer-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.
totalEditsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / warnings
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Secret-scanner findings in the rewritten files that did not block the call. Malicious content blocks the whole call with MALICIOUS_CONTENT instead.",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "file": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "line": {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "match": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "file",
+      "line",
+      "type",
+      "match"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / request_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: atomicity across files, validation-before-write ordering, and the count-check semantics. Some of this repeats the schema's all-or-nothing note, but the count semantics are a genuine addition.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, immediately followed by the sibling relationship and the most decision-relevant semantics. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 description covers atomicity, count behavior, and multi-file scope, and output schema makes return-value documentation unnecessary. However, the unexplained required `name` parameter is a real gap for a destructive tool: an agent cannot reliably construct a valid call without knowing what name refers to.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning not present in the schema, including count semantics (1 default, -1 all, positive asserts exact count) and the 25-file/200-edit call limit. However, the required `name` parameter is never explained in either the schema or the description, leaving an agent to guess what identifier it expects.

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 states a specific verb ('Apply'), a clear resource ('find/replace edits across MANY files'), and explicitly positions itself as the 'Batch sibling of update_file_content.' This distinguishes it from the closest single-file sibling without needing to open the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use it: when editing many files in one call, rather than using the single-file update_file_content. It does not explicitly state 'use update_file_content for a single file,' but the batch-vs-single distinction is strongly implied.

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

All vibedeploy toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action—deploy, file, domain, snapshot, form, analytics—and the descriptions carefully clarify overlap (e.g., deploy_site vs update_site vs begin_deploy). A few pairs like read_file/read_source_file or list_file_hashes/list_source_files could be confused, but the pattern is clear enough to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, list_, get_, read_, update_, delete_, verify_, etc.), with singular verbs for single resources and plural verbs for batches. This makes the surface highly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

39 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped surface and many could be consolidated (e.g., read_file/read_files/read_source_file/read_source_files, or the multiple deploy entry points). The broad domain explains some of the count, but the set feels bloated and will slow tool selection.

Completeness3/5

The core deploy lifecycle is well covered: create/read/update/delete sites, patch files, manage custom domains, and configure forms. However, there are notable gaps—snapshots can be created and listed but not restored or deleted, and there is no explicit rollback-to-previous-deploy mechanism, which are common expectations for a deployment platform.

Resources