Skip to main content
Glama

vibedeploy

by be.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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYesHow the archive's files apply: replace wipes the live dist; patch merges them in.
nameYesSite name to deploy to.
archiveUrlYesPublic 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
modeYes
nameYes
siteIdYes
archiveUrlYes
request_idNoServer-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.
bytesFetchedYes
filesDeployedYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds value by detailing the server-side fetch, max size/timeout, and hostname allowlist. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (~100 words) and front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds distinct information without 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 the presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral details, use case, and parameter constraints. It could briefly mention authentication or site existence prerequisites, but overall is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the mode semantics ('replace wipes live dist, patch merges') and providing extensive host allowlist context for archiveUrl. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Publish a website to a live URL from a public archive link' and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it combines three steps into one call. It also specifies the exact use case of bypassing upload endpoint restrictions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides context on when to use (when sandbox can't reach upload endpoint) and the alternative workflow (begin_deploy + POST + commit_deploy). However, it lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, though the positive guidance is clear.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from deployment and file management to domain configuration and analytics. Even similar-sounding tools like add_files and add_file_chunk are well-differentiated by context and use case.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., add_custom_domain, list_sites, delete_source_file). The naming is predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count4/5

39 tools is higher than the typical 3-15 range, but each tool serves a necessary function for a comprehensive deployment platform. The count is justified by the broad feature set, though slightly heavy.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of site deployment, management, backup, custom domains, form handling, analytics, and source editing. There are no obvious gaps for the intended functionality.

Resources