Skip to main content
Glama

vibedeploy

by be.vibedeploy

Get site details

get_site
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return name, url, plan, last deploy time, and recent deploy history.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
siteIdNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
nameYes
planYes
filesYesNumber of files currently served by the site (live count from the pod, excluding lost+found and _staging). After update_site(mode:'patch'), this may be larger than the most recent deploy's fileCount because patch keeps the existing files. After update_site(mode:'replace'), it equals the most recent deploy's fileCount.
siteIdYes
statusYesLifecycle state. Sites are usable only in 'active'. 'deleted' is the soft-delete recovery bucket (returned until the team's restore window expires and the sweeper purges the row). 'deleting' is the transient state of an in-flight hard-delete request.
historyYes
bandwidthYes
filePathsNoSite-relative paths of every file currently on the pod (same scope as `files`). Lets a caller see what's there before deciding which paths to patch or delete, without having to download the site. Omitted when the live introspection step fails (e.g. pod not ready) — `files` then falls back to the most recent deploy's fileCount.
request_idNoServer-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.
lastDeployAtYes
sourceStoredYesWhether editable source is stored. Read and edit source, then build_and_deploy when true.
sourceManifestYesSaved source build settings. Preserve these when rebuilding.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / sourceManifest
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {},
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Saved source build settings. Preserve these when rebuilding."
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / sourceStored
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Whether editable source is stored. Read and edit source, then build_and_deploy when true.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "siteId",
-  "name",
-  "url",
-  "plan",
-  "status",
-  "files",
-  "lastDeployAt",
-  "bandwidth",
-  "history"
-]New value: +[
+  "siteId",
+  "name",
+  "url",
+  "plan",
+  "status",
+  "files",
+  "sourceStored",
+  "sourceManifest",
+  "lastDeployAt",
+  "bandwidth",
+  "history"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / request_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Return' phrasing aligns with a safe read operation. The description adds some output behavior but does not disclose how site selection works, error behavior, or any auth requirements. It neither contradicts nor substantially extends the 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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and immediately lists what is returned. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return fields are further specified elsewhere, and the tool is conceptually simple. However, the description omits how to identify the target site, especially since neither parameter is required and there is no parameter guidance. This leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the input parameters 'name' or 'siteId' at all. It only lists return fields, leaving the agent to infer which identifier is needed and whether one, both, or neither is acceptable. Since there are no required parameters, this ambiguity is more significant.

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?

The description states a clear action ('Return') on a specific resource ('site') and enumerates the output fields (name, url, plan, last deploy time, recent deploy history). This helps distinguish it from siblings like get_site_analytics or list_deploys, though it stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives.

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 tool is used when you need details about a single site, but it does not state when to prefer get_site over list_sites, get_site_analytics, or get_account. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives.

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action—deploy, file, domain, snapshot, form, analytics—and the descriptions carefully clarify overlap (e.g., deploy_site vs update_site vs begin_deploy). A few pairs like read_file/read_source_file or list_file_hashes/list_source_files could be confused, but the pattern is clear enough to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, list_, get_, read_, update_, delete_, verify_, etc.), with singular verbs for single resources and plural verbs for batches. This makes the surface highly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

39 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped surface and many could be consolidated (e.g., read_file/read_files/read_source_file/read_source_files, or the multiple deploy entry points). The broad domain explains some of the count, but the set feels bloated and will slow tool selection.

Completeness3/5

The core deploy lifecycle is well covered: create/read/update/delete sites, patch files, manage custom domains, and configure forms. However, there are notable gaps—snapshots can be created and listed but not restored or deleted, and there is no explicit rollback-to-previous-deploy mechanism, which are common expectations for a deployment platform.

Resources