Skip to main content
Glama

vibedeploy

by be.vibedeploy

Build editable source and ship the result as the new dist

build_and_deploy

Run a build inside a hardened one-shot pod against the site's editable source tree (write source first via write_source_files / list_source_files autoPromote), then atomically swap the build output into the live dist. Reuses the same build pod the GitProject git-deploy flow uses, so the same isolation guarantees apply: no SA token, no DB/Vault reach, NetworkPolicy-restricted egress. The first run writes the chosen buildCommand/outputDir into Site.sourceManifest; subsequent calls can omit those fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
siteIdNo
rootPathNoSubdirectory inside the source tree where package.json lives. Empty string = source root. Useful for monorepos.
outputDirNoOverride for which directory to ship as the new dist. If omitted, uses the manifest, then auto-detects (dist > build > out > public).
buildCommandNoOverride for the build script's `npm run build` step (e.g. 'npm run build:prod' or 'pnpm vite build'). If omitted, uses the manifest stored on the site, then falls back to 'npm run build'.
saveManifestNoIf true (default), persists the merged manifest back onto the site so future builds default to these settings. Set false to do a one-off build without changing the saved manifest.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
siteIdYes
buildLogYesCombined orchestrator + builder log; truncated to ~32 KB to fit MCP responses.
manifestYes
outputDirYes
request_idNoServer-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.
totalBytesYes
filesDeployedYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / request_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: hardened one-shot pod, no SA token, no DB/Vault reach, NetworkPolicy-restricted egress, and atomic swap. These details enhance the agent's understanding of the tool's security and operational characteristics.

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 concise (4 sentences) with front-loaded action. Each sentence adds value: the process, isolation guarantees, and state persistence. No redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given complexity (6 params, no required ones, output schema present), the description covers the core process, statefulness, and security context. It lacks details on output format or error handling, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values. Slight gap: no mention of rollback or failure scenarios.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 67% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that buildCommand and outputDir can be omitted in subsequent calls after the first run persists them into Site.sourceManifest. This clarifies the stateful nature of the tool. However, parameters name and siteId are not elaborated beyond the schema.

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 the tool's action: build the editable source tree in a hardened pod and atomically swap into the live dist. It distinguishes from siblings like 'commit_deploy' and 'begin_deploy' by specifying the isolation guarantees and the integration with source writing tools.

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 provides implicit guidance: use after writing source files via write_source_files or list_source_files autoPromote. It mentions that the first run persists settings for subsequent calls. However, it lacks an explicit comparison to alternatives like deploy_from_url or commit_deploy, and does not specify when NOT to use this tool.

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