Skip to main content
Glama

vibedeploy

by be.vibedeploy

List the editable source tree for a site

list_source_files
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return SHA-256 + size for every file in the site's editable source tree (the platform's copy of the pre-build code, not the served dist). Use BEFORE editing so you know which paths exist and which haven't changed since the last build. autoPromote:true will mirror the served dist into source for static-only sites whose source tree is empty (does nothing if the dist looks built).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
siteIdNo
autoPromoteNoIf true and the site has no source tree yet but its dist looks static, copy dist → source on the fly. Default: false.
forcePromoteNoIf true, mirror dist → source EVEN when dist looks built (e.g. minified Vite output). Use when the original source isn't recoverable and you're willing to edit the build artefact directly. Sets manifest.noBuild=true automatically when no package.json is in the dist, so subsequent build_and_deploy short-circuits to a direct source→dist copy. forcePromote implies autoPromote.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
filesYes
siteIdYes
request_idNoServer-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.
totalBytesYes
totalFilesYes
autoPromotedNoSet to true when this call ran the auto-promote (dist → source) before listing. Lets the caller learn the source tree was just synthesised from the served dist.

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description reveals autoPromote can copy dist to source on the fly, which is a side effect. This contradiction degrades transparency. The description does add context about when autoPromote has no effect.

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 cover purpose, usage, and conditional behavior efficiently. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important 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 the output schema exists (not shown), the description covers the core behavior and special parameters. It could mention what happens if the source tree is empty without autoPromote, but overall it's fairly complete for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%, and the description adds meaning for autoPromote and forcePromote beyond their schema descriptions, explaining their use cases and implications. However, name and siteId parameters lack additional semantic guidance.

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 returns SHA-256 and size for every file in the editable source tree, distinguishing it from the served dist. The verb 'return' and resource 'file info' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises to use the tool 'BEFORE editing' to learn existing paths and changes. It explains conditional behaviors for autoPromote and forcePromote, though it doesn't name alternative tools for related tasks.

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