vibedeploy

Enable or update the forms relay for a site

set_forms_config

DestructiveIdempotent

Configure the built-in form-to-email relay, fully self-service. Supports a custom From (via a verified sender domain or your own SMTP relay), an explicit Reply-To, and full email branding (subject template, field labels/order, logo, accent color, or a custom HTML body). Requires team role owner or admin. Pass config:null to switch the relay off. If you set a custom sender without an smtpRelay, the response returns the DNS records to publish; then call verify_forms_sender_domain. Submissions: POST JSON to the returned endpoint with Content-Type: application/json (UTF-8). Flat object of form fields (strings/numbers/booleans; checkbox groups may be arrays of strings, joined with ', '). Max 30 fields, 5000 chars/field, 20000 total. Response: {success:true,data:{ok:true}} or {success:false,error:{code,message}}. Rate limit: 10 submits per IP per 10 minutes. Include a hidden honeypot input (default "_gotcha") and leave it empty.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`config`	Yes	Full config to store (replaces existing). Pass null to disable and clear.
`siteName`	Yes	The site to configure.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	Yes
`enabled`	Yes
`delivery`	Yes	platform \| verified-domain \| verified-domain-pending \| custom-relay.
`endpoint`	Yes	URL the site's form should POST to.
`siteName`	Yes
`formsConfig`	Yes	Stored config (smtpRelay.password redacted to hasPassword).
`activeSender`	Yes	The From that will actually be used right now.
`senderDomain`	No	DNS records to publish + verification status (verified-domain path).

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal idempotent and destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those flags: role requirements, null-to-disable semantics, the DNS verification workflow for custom senders, POST endpoint behavior, response shape, rate limits, and honeypot expectations. It clearly discloses that disabling the relay clears the config, matching destructiveHint. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense but every sentence carries operational value: configuration options, auth requirements, disable path, verification follow-up, submission format, limits, response shape, and honeypot guidance. It front-loads the core action and moves to progressively more specific behavioral details without repetition or filler.

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?

For a complex configuration tool with nested settings, annotations, and an output schema, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers prerequisites, side effects, follow-up actions, runtime behavior, limits, and error response format. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call the tool and to interpret the result.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics such as the sender/smtpRelay verification dependency, the 'response returns DNS records' workflow, and runtime constraints like max field count and rate limits. These go beyond the schema's per-property descriptions, though some are runtime details rather than parameter-level clarifications, so a 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Configure the built-in form-to-email relay', which clearly identifies the operation. It also differentiates from related siblings like get_forms_config and verify_forms_sender_domain by framing this as the configuration/write operation. The title 'Enable or update the forms relay for a site' is consistent and reinforces the scope.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: to configure, update, or disable the forms relay, including the explicit 'Pass config:null to switch the relay off' instruction. It names the follow-up verification tool verify_forms_sender_domain and states the required team role (owner/admin), but it does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling such as get_forms_config for reading the current config. Overall it provides strong contextual guidance without a formal 'when not to use' boundary.

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.