Skip to main content
Glama

vibedeploy

by be.vibedeploy

Enable or update the forms relay for a site

set_forms_config
DestructiveIdempotent

Configure the built-in form-to-email relay, fully self-service. Supports a custom From (via a verified sender domain or your own SMTP relay), an explicit Reply-To, and full email branding (subject template, field labels/order, logo, accent color, or a custom HTML body). Requires team role owner or admin. Pass config:null to switch the relay off. If you set a custom sender without an smtpRelay, the response returns the DNS records to publish; then call verify_forms_sender_domain. Submissions: POST JSON to the returned endpoint with Content-Type: application/json (UTF-8). Flat object of form fields (strings/numbers/booleans; checkbox groups may be arrays of strings, joined with ', '). Max 30 fields, 5000 chars/field, 20000 total. Response: {success:true,data:{ok:true}} or {success:false,error:{code,message}}. Rate limit: 10 submits per IP per 10 minutes. Include a hidden honeypot input (default "_gotcha") and leave it empty.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
configYesFull config to store (replaces existing). Pass null to disable and clear.
siteNameYesThe site to configure.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesYes
enabledYes
deliveryYesplatform | verified-domain | verified-domain-pending | custom-relay.
endpointYesURL the site's form should POST to.
siteNameYes
request_idNoServer-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.
formsConfigYesStored config (smtpRelay.password redacted to hasPassword).
activeSenderYesThe From that will actually be used right now.
senderDomainNoDNS records to publish + verification status (verified-domain path).

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?

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations. It discloses that the tool is destructive (can disable the relay) and idempotent (setting config replaces existing). It includes submission details (endpoint, content type, field constraints, rate limits, honeypot), which are not captured in annotations. This helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and is well-structured into logical sections. However, it is relatively long and includes some details (e.g., submission format, rate limits) that could be considered beyond the tool's core responsibility. Still, it remains focused and each sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (many config options, multiple behaviors like enabling/disabling, SMTP relay, branding), the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use it, required roles, follow-up steps, submission details, and response format. The output schema is not shown but the description summarizes the response structure, making the tool self-contained.

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?

The input schema is fully described (100% coverage), so the schema already provides detailed parameter explanations. The description adds value by explaining the effect of passing null for config and linking the sender configuration to the verification workflow. While the schema covers individual fields, the description provides higher-level context for the most important behaviors.

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 purpose: 'Configure the built-in form-to-email relay, fully self-service.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_forms_config and verify_forms_sender_domain by specifying its role in enabling, updating, or disabling the relay. The verb 'configure' plus the resource 'forms relay' is specific and actionable.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool, including the required team role (owner or admin) and how to disable the relay (pass config:null). It also explains a follow-up action (call verify_forms_sender_domain) when setting a custom sender without an SMTP relay. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to siblings like get_forms_config for reading.

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