vibedeploy

Deploy a site from a public archive URL

deploy_from_url

Destructive

Publish a website to a live URL from a public archive link. Point this at a tar(.gz) archive on github / gist / S3 and the server fetches and deploys it, no upload from your side. Server-side fetch of a tar(.gz) archive from a public HTTPS URL, then deploy its contents. Sidesteps the case where your code-execution sandbox can reach github / gist / S3 etc. but not mcp.vibedeploy.be's upload endpoint. Equivalent to begin_deploy → POST uploadUrl → commit_deploy in one call. Hostname allowlist enforced; see the archiveUrl description. Replace mode on a site that already has files needs confirm:"I-want-to-replace-all-files". A failed call never leaves a staging session open.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	Yes	How the archive's files apply: replace wipes the live dist; patch merges them in.
`name`	Yes	Site name to deploy to.
`confirm`	No	Required only for mode "replace" on a site that already has files. Pass exactly "I-want-to-replace-all-files" to acknowledge that the live files will be deleted and replaced with the archive's files.
`archiveUrl`	Yes	Public HTTPS URL of a tar(.gz) archive. The server fetches it (max 100 MB, 60s timeout), parses the tarball, and deploys its files. Allowed hosts: github.com / raw.githubusercontent.com / gist.github.com / gist.githubusercontent.com / gitlab.com / bitbucket.org / codeberg.org / .amazonaws.com / .r2.cloudflarestorage.com / .backblazeb2.com / .workers.dev / *.pages.dev / transfer.sh / 0x0.st / mcp.vibedeploy.be. Use this when your runtime sandbox can reach the host above but can't reach mcp.vibedeploy.be's upload endpoint directly.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`mode`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`siteId`	Yes
`archiveUrl`	Yes
`bytesFetched`	Yes
`filesDeployed`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm

Added value: +{
+  "const": "I-want-to-replace-all-files",
+  "description": "Required only for mode \"replace\" on a site that already has files. Pass exactly \"I-want-to-replace-all-files\" to acknowledge that the live files will be deleted and replaced with the archive's files.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / request_id

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

Changed1 schema field changedJul 20, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / request_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedJun 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already mark destructive=true and readOnly=false), the description discloses server-side fetching limits (100 MB, 60s timeout), a hostname allowlist, the need for the confirm string in replace mode, and that a failed call never leaves a staging session open. These are meaningful behavioral traits not present in the structured metadata.

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?

The description is packed with useful details and the key use-case is front-loaded, but there is redundancy: 'Publish a website to a live URL from a public archive link' and 'Server-side fetch of a tar(.gz) archive from a public HTTPS URL, then deploy its contents' say essentially the same thing. Tightening would make it a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich input schema, the output schema, and the annotations, the description still contributes everything necessary: failure cleanup, confirmation requirement, host allowlist, and size/timeout constraints. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly without auxiliary documentation.

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%, and the schema's archiveUrl description already contains the allowed hosts, max size, timeout, and the rationale; the tool description mostly echoes these. It adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Publish a website to a live URL from a public archive link'), and the description explicitly differentiates itself from the staged deployment flow by saying it is 'Equivalent to begin_deploy → POST uploadUrl → commit_deploy in one call.' This lets an agent distinguish it from multi-step siblings without opening schemas.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use this when your runtime sandbox can reach the host above but can't reach mcp.vibedeploy.be's upload endpoint directly.' It also frames the tool as a one-shot replacement for the begin_deploy/commit_deploy sequence, which tells an agent exactly when to choose this over the staged alternative.

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

All vibedeploy tools Inspect

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.