Skip to main content
Glama

VibeDeploy

by be.vibedeploy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete a file from the source tree

delete_source_file
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove one file from the site's editable source tree. The served files do not change until build_and_deploy runs.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoSite name as shown by list_sites, e.g. my-portfolio. Provide name or siteId.
pathYesPath inside the source tree to delete, e.g. 'src/old.css'.
siteIdNoSite id from list_sites or get_site. Use instead of name.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
pathYes
siteIdYes
existedYesTrue if the file was present and removed; false if it didn't exist (no-op).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"Site name as shown by list_sites, e.g. my-portfolio. Provide name or siteId."
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Source-relative path to delete."New value: +"Path inside the source tree to delete, e.g. 'src/old.css'."
    • addedInput schema / properties / siteId / description
      Added value: +"Site id from list_sites or get_site. Use instead of name."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / request_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / request_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the deletion targets the editable source tree and does not affect served output until build_and_deploy runs, which is the non-obvious consequence an agent needs. It stops short of mentioning auth or irreversibility/confirm-step requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the deferred-deploy caveat follows immediately, so nothing is buried.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safe/destructive profile, the description only needs to supply the behavioral nuance, which it does via the build_and_deploy caveat. It could go slightly further on irreversibility of the source-tree deletion, but for this complexity level it is essentially complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so name, path, and siteId are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no path format, no confirmation of the name/siteId alternative), so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('one file from the site's editable source tree'), and the source-tree qualifier cleanly separates it from served/deployed content and from delete_site. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so an agent still has to infer the boundary against write_source_files/apply_edits, keeping this just short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the workflow ('served files do not change until build_and_deploy runs'), which hints at when deletion matters, but it never states when to use this instead of apply_edits, update_file_content, or write_source_files, nor any prerequisite. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources