Skip to main content
Glama

vibedeploy

by be.vibedeploy

Read multiple files from a deployed site in one call

read_files
Read-onlyIdempotent

Batched version of read_file. Pass up to 50 paths; each is fetched independently with the same per-file rules as read_file. The whole batch is capped at 8388608 bytes total — once that's exhausted, remaining paths fail with BATCH_BUDGET_EXCEEDED so the agent can re-request them in another call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
pathsYesSite-relative paths to read (1..50). Order is preserved in the response.
siteIdNo
maxBytesPerFileNoPer-file cap. Default 1048576, hard max 5242880.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
filesYesOne entry per requested path, in the same order. Each entry is independent: a missing file or oversized file fails its own entry but does not abort the whole batch. If the cumulative byte budget is exhausted partway through, remaining entries fail with code BATCH_BUDGET_EXCEEDED.
siteIdYes
request_idNoServer-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.
totalBytesYesSum of bytes returned across successful entries.
budgetExceededAtYesIndex of the first path that was skipped due to the cumulative byte budget, or null if everything fit.

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds crucial details: the batch budget cap of 8388608 bytes and the specific error BATCH_BUDGET_EXCEEDED, which is not in annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence provides essential information: batching, limit, budget, and error handling.

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, the description covers key behavioral constraints (batch budget, independent fetching, per-file rules) and references read_file for further details, though it could mention that siteId and name are optional.

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 mentions the path limit of 50 and 'same per-file rules as read_file', adding meaning beyond the schema for paths and maxBytesPerFile, but does not clarify the name and siteId parameters, which have no schema descriptions.

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 as a batched version of read_file for reading multiple files, and distinguishes it from the sibling read_file by specifying the batch capability.

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 indicates when to use this tool (when needing multiple files) and the batch budget constraint implying re-request behavior, though it does not explicitly exclude single file use.

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