Skip to main content
Glama

VibeKit

by io.github.VibeKit-Bot

VibeKit Create App

vibekit_create_app

Create a new hosted app from a starter template and deploy it live at .vibekit.bot. Call vibekit_list_templates first to pick a valid template. To deploy existing code from a GitHub repo instead, use vibekit_deploy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
templateYesTemplate id from vibekit_list_templates (e.g. 'landing', 'dashboard', 'blog', 'saas', 'crud-api')
subdomainYesDesired subdomain — the app goes live at <subdomain>.vibekit.bot. Lowercase letters, numbers, and hyphens.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the call succeeded.
dataNoThe created app: appId, subdomain, live URL, and initial deploy status.
errorNoError message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Result envelope: ok=true with data on success, ok=false with error on failure.",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The created app: appId, subdomain, live URL, and initial deploy status."
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error).",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether the call succeeded.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds context about the live deployment aspect but does not detail side effects or potential duplication. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loading the primary action, then adding prerequisite and alternative usage. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 2 parameters with full schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core action, prerequisite, and alternative. It is mostly complete, though it could mention subdomain uniqueness or default behavior on conflict. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new semantic detail beyond what the input schema already provides for each parameter. It reinforces the template parameter's source but offers no additional meaning or constraints.

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 creates a new hosted app from a starter template and deploys it live, with a specific subdomain. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool vibekit_deploy, which is for deploying existing GitHub code. The verb-resource pairing is explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly instructs users to call vibekit_list_templates first to pick a valid template, and provides an alternative tool (vibekit_deploy) for deploying from a GitHub repo. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All VibeKit 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but vibekit_chat and vibekit_submit_task both handle AI-driven code changes, leading to potential confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but overlap exists.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use the 'vibekit_' prefix and lowercase with underscores. Most follow a verb_noun pattern, but a few (e.g., 'vibekit_account') are noun-only, causing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is on the high side, covering many aspects of the platform. While mostly justified, the count feels slightly excessive and could be streamlined.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of apps, databases, tasks, schedules, skills, QA, and environment variables. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.

Resources