Skip to main content
Glama

vibedeploy

by be.vibedeploy

Verify a custom domain (step 2 of 2)

verify_custom_domain
Idempotent

Check the TXT record the user added at step 1 and, if found, attach the domain to the site's ingress. If verification fails, the most common cause is DNS propagation delay; wait a few minutes and try again. Once verified, the domain serves the site immediately (HTTPS issues automatically within ~30s).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recordIdYesThe recordId returned by add_custom_domain.
siteNameYesThe site the domain was attached to.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
messageYes
verifiedYes
request_idNoServer-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, not read-only), the description details the verification process, DNS check, ingress attachment, and HTTPS setup timing (~30s). It also explains common failure cause and retry advice, adding significant context.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded main action. No superfluous words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description fully covers the purpose, workflow step, behavior, failure modes, and side effects. It is complete for correct usage.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions (100% coverage) for both parameters. The description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, so it meets the baseline.

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 the tool checks a TXT record and attaches the domain to the site's ingress, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing 'step 2 of 2' and the prior step.

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 implies usage after add_custom_domain by mentioning 'the user added at step 1' and provides common failure handling (DNS delay, retry). It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context 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