VibeDeploy

List SHA-256 hashes of every file on a site

list_file_hashes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return SHA-256 and size of every served file. Before a redeploy, hash your local files, compare, and upload only the changed ones with update_site mode:'patch' or begin_deploy plus add_files.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Site name as shown by list_sites, e.g. my-portfolio. Provide name or siteId.
`siteId`	No	Site id from list_sites or get_site. Use instead of name.

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 14, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / name / description

Previous value: -"Site name or custom domain. Same lookup rules as get_site."New value: +"Site name as shown by list_sites, e.g. my-portfolio. Provide name or siteId."

addedInput schema / properties / siteId / description

Added value: +"Site id from list_sites or get_site. Use instead of name."

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope ('every served file') but says nothing about auth requirements, cost/latency on large sites, or result size limits — modest value beyond 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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first states what is returned, the second states the motivating workflow and the exact follow-up calls. Front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description covers purpose and the comparison workflow. It could have noted that the listing is unpaginated or expensive for large sites, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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% and both params (name/siteId) are fully documented there, including the 'provide name or siteId' selection rule. The description adds no parameter semantics of its own, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Return SHA-256 and size of every served file') and scopes it to deployed/served files, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_source_files, read_files and search_files. An agent can identify the tool without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow and named alternatives: hash local files, compare, then upload only changed ones via update_site mode:'patch' or begin_deploy + add_files. This is a real when-to-use directive referencing sibling tools, not vague context.

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.