Skip to main content
Glama

vibedeploy

by be.vibedeploy

Create a manual snapshot (backup) for a site

create_snapshot
Destructive

Take a point-in-time Longhorn snapshot of a site's served files. It does not change served content, but retention cleanup may remove older backups. Requires an owner or admin team role. Returns NO_VOLUME if the site has no volume yet (it has never been deployed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
labelNoOptional human-readable label for this backup.
siteIdNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
createdYes
request_idNoServer-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.
snapshotNameYesThe name of the snapshot that was created.

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false) are meaningfully elaborated: the description clarifies that the destructive aspect refers to 'retention cleanup may remove older backups' rather than altering served content, discloses the authorization requirement, and flags the NO_VOLUME error condition. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone convey, with no contradiction between the text and the annotation flags.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the safety/side-effect clarification, and the role requirement plus error condition. The most important information is front-loaded and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a mutation with side effects, the description covers purpose, what gets affected, required permissions, and a notable edge error. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described in prose. The remaining gap is parameter semantics (name and siteId), which prevents full completeness.

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 coverage is only 33% — name and siteId are bare strings with no schema descriptions, and the description does not compensate. It never explains what 'name' means or clarifies the role of siteId, leaving two of three parameters effectively undocumented across both schema and description; the fact that zero parameters are required makes this gap riskier because an agent may not know which arguments are actually necessary for the operation.

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 opens with a specific verb-object pair: 'Take a point-in-time Longhorn snapshot of a site's served files,' which precisely identifies the operation and its resource. The title reinforces it as a 'manual snapshot (backup),' and among the siblings only list_snapshots overlaps — the description makes clear this creates rather than lists, so there is no confusion with deploy, delete, or update 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?

Provides clear context: it is a manual backup that 'does not change served content,' requires 'an owner or admin team role,' and only succeeds for deployed sites (else NO_VOLUME). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternatives, though no sibling is a close substitute, so the omission is minor.

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