vibedeploy

List SHA-256 hashes of every file on a site

list_file_hashes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return SHA-256 + size for every file currently served. Use BEFORE re-deploying to skip files whose content hasn't changed: hash your local files, diff against this list, and only ship the differences via update_site mode:'patch' or begin_deploy → add_files. For SPAs with content-hashed bundle names this typically reduces a full-site redeploy to a handful of files.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Site name or custom domain. Same lookup rules as get_site.
`siteId`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`files`	Yes
`siteId`	Yes
`totalBytes`	Yes
`totalFiles`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful scope behavior: it returns every currently served file, not a filtered or source-level list, and frames the result as a deploy-time diff baseline. 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?

Three sentences, with the core return value front-loaded in the first sentence and the redeploy workflow in the second. The SPA note earns its place by explaining why the tool produces dramatic savings in a common case.

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 simple read-only operation, the annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description supplies the necessary operational purpose and workflow. It is slightly incomplete only in not clarifying the site identifier semantics/defaults or when not to use it.

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?

The description never mentions the site identifier parameters. The schema documents 'name' but leaves siteId with no description, and at 50% coverage the description should compensate; it doesn't. An agent must rely on schema or external context to know how the site is selected.

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?

First sentence names a specific operation: return SHA-256 + size for every file currently served. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that manipulate source files or deploys. The description also gives a concrete use case (redeploy diffs), so an agent can recognize when this tool is intended.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this before re-deploying, and explains the diff-and-ship workflow, including how to use the result with update_site mode:'patch' or begin_deploy → add_files. It does not state when not to use it or compare it against sibling listing tools, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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.