Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SHIP

by ai.letsship
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create a site

create_site

Create a SHIP-hosted site for a project and hold its address, https://.. The kind of the site comes from the template. Each project can hold one site, and the plan of the organization sets how many sites it can hold. A refused slug or a full plan comes back with the reason. This tool calls the SHIP API, documented at https://letsship.ai/docs/api. Requires the config:write capability.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "templateId": "<templateId>"
    },
    "name": "create_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesThe address: 3 to 40 of a-z, 0-9 and single hyphens, e.g. 'acme-blog'
projectIdYesProject id the site belongs to
templateIdYesA template id from list_site_templates, e.g. 'blog'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds real context beyond that: the external SHIP API dependency, the config:write authorization requirement, the one-site-per-project invariant, plan-level quotas, and that refusals (bad slug, full plan) return a reason rather than silently failing. It stops short of saying what a successful call yields or whether a created site can be rolled back.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and address outcome, then constraints, then authorization. The API-docs pointer is marginal filler but the capability sentence earns its place. No redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe what a successful creation returns (site id, URL, status), and it only covers the failure path ('a refused slug or a full plan comes back with the reason'). For a three-parameter write tool with no return contract, that is a visible gap even though the input side is well covered.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the slug becomes the public subdomain, and the template governs the site's kind. The projectId and templateId linkage to list_site_templates is reinforced in context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a SHIP-hosted site for a project') and immediately states the resulting address shape, https://<slug>.<sites domain>. That distinguishes it cleanly from get_site, update_site, delete_site and the list_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It gives the operative constraints an agent needs before calling: one site per project, an org-plan quota, a template that determines site kind, and a required config:write capability. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling (e.g., update_site for changes, list_site_templates to discover templateId is only implied), so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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

All SHIP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources