Skip to main content
Glama

VibeKit Redeploy

vibekit_redeploy

Redeploy an existing app to pull and ship the latest code. Use after pushing changes to the app's GitHub repo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appIdYesApp ID (from vibekit_list_apps)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the call succeeded.
dataNoRedeploy confirmation with deploy/task 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": "Redeploy confirmation with deploy/task 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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint:false, idempotentHint:false, destructiveHint:false, indicating mutation but not destruction. The description adds 'pull and ship the latest code', implying the app is updated, but does not disclose potential downtime, restart behavior, or that the operation is not idempotent. With annotations providing some baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by usage context. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits potential behavioral details like async deployment or downtime. For a redeploy tool, this is a minor gap, but overall the description is complete enough for most use cases.

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 schema already describes the single parameter 'appId' as coming from vibekit_list_apps. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 verb 'redeploy' and the resource 'existing app', and specifies the context of pulling the latest code after a GitHub push. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like vibekit_deploy (initial deployment) and vibekit_restart_app (restart without code update).

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use after pushing changes to the app's GitHub repo.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to make a correct decision.

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

Try in Browser

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.