Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SHIP

by ai.letsship
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Publish a starter site

publish_starter_site

Publish the first version of a site from a brand kit, with no mission and no credits (SHIP-540 ST.5). Only for a project SHIP made with Start from scratch. SHIP writes the kit, the site's address and pages made from the facts of the form into the repository, and that change deploys the site. Send the same site form as create_mission's starter, with brand.source preset. A brand from a website or a logo needs create_mission instead. A second call for the same site answers with the published site. Read get_site for liveDeployId: it is set once the site is live.

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>",
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "publish_starter_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesThe form of a site starter. Required with starter; leave out title, description, labels and entry
projectIdYesThe project SHIP made, from list_projects

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses what is actually written (the kit, the site's address, generated pages) and that the repository change is what triggers the deploy, plus a verification path via get_site's liveDeployId. It does not cover permissions or failure modes, and the described no-op repeat behavior sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, though it reads as clarifying detail rather than a contradiction.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with scope, prerequisite, mechanism, alternative and verification in five sentences. The internal ticket reference "(SHIP-540 ST.5)" is noise an agent cannot use.

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?

For a two-parameter nested-form mutation with no output schema, it covers scope, prerequisites, side effects, alternatives and how to confirm liveness. It stops short of describing what the initial response contains, which an agent may want since no output schema exists.

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 cross-tool meaning the schema cannot: the site form is the same as create_mission's starter and brand.source must be preset here. That steers parameter construction in a way the nested schema alone does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Publish the first version of a site from a brand kit") and immediately bounds it with "with no mission and no credits," which separates it from create_mission and create_site without requiring the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ("Only for a project SHIP made with Start from scratch"), names the alternative and its selecting condition ("A brand from a website or a logo needs create_mission instead"), and covers the repeat-call case ("A second call for the same site answers with the published site").

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