Skip to main content
Glama

vibedeploy

by be.vibedeploy

Read multiple source files in one call

read_source_files
Read-onlyIdempotent

Batched read across the editable source tree (up to 50 paths). Each entry is independent: a missing/oversized file fails its own slot but doesn't abort the batch. Cumulative cap 8388608 bytes; remainder fails with BATCH_BUDGET_EXCEEDED.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
pathsYes
siteIdNo
maxBytesPerFileNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
filesYes
siteIdYes
request_idNoServer-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.
totalBytesYes
budgetExceededAtYes

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

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant detail: batch limits, independent per-file errors, a cumulative byte cap (8388608 bytes), and the error code BATCH_BUDGET_EXCEEDED. No contradictions with 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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds essential information about constraints and behavior. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

Given the 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and existing output schema, the description covers batch behavior well but omits parameter explanations (e.g., what 'siteId' or 'maxBytesPerFile' do). Lacks completeness for parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only implicitly references the 'paths' array (via 'up to 50 paths') and a cumulative cap (related to overall bytes). It does not explain 'siteId', 'maxBytesPerFile', or 'name' parameters, leaving significant gaps.

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 performs a batched read of source files, with specific limits (up to 50 paths) and error handling (independent failures). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_file (single file) and read_files (likely broader scope).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for batched reads of the editable source tree but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_source_file or read_files. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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