Skip to main content
Glama

Dplooy

by com.dplooy.api

Deploy website

deploy_website
Destructive

NEW SITE? STOP — run the BUILD ORDER first (get_account → ask single-file vs multi-page + notification emails → create_data_collection for EVERY repeating section → create_form / create_booking_page → upload_media → THEN deploy). Deploys ONE self-contained HTML file (markup, Tailwind CDN classes, small JS in index.html; optional css/js). Hardcoded list content that belongs in Data is a BROKEN build. After deploy: assign_to_project, configure_chatbot, and ALWAYS hand the user the complete site code in your own interface — deploying alone is not the deliverable. get_guide("workflow") has the full rules. Returns a live URL; reusing a project name redeploys it in-place.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jsNoJavaScript code (will be saved as script.js and auto-linked in the HTML)
cssNoCSS styles (will be saved as style.css and auto-linked in the HTML)
htmlYesThe full HTML content of the website
nameNoURL-friendly project name (e.g. 'my-landing-page'). If omitted, a name is generated. Reusing an existing name will redeploy.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces and elaborates: 'reusing a project name redeploys it in-place.' It also discloses auto-linking of CSS/JS, the constraint on hardcoded content, and that the live URL alone is not a complete deliverable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long and emphatic, but its structure is front-loaded with the most critical warning and then proceeds logically: prerequisites, deployment behavior, post-deployment steps, and output. Every sentence carries meaningful workflow or constraint information, though some could be trimmed.

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 tool with no output schema, it states the return type (live URL), explains redeployment semantics, sets the expected deliverable, and points to a guide for full rules. Given the complexity of the surrounding workflow, this is complete enough for an agent to deploy correctly and know what to do afterward.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining how name controls redeploy behavior, that css/js are optional and auto-linked, and that html is the complete site content.

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 and resource: 'Deploys ONE self-contained HTML file' with optional CSS/JS and returns a live URL. It clearly distinguishes from the deploy_files sibling by emphasizing single-file deployment.

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?

Provides an explicit build-order prerequisite, warns against deploying before the order is complete, and lists required post-deploy actions. It also references get_guide('workflow') for full rules, making usage guidance unusually complete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Dplooy 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action, and the descriptions are detailed enough to avoid most misselection. The main ambiguity is between deploy_files and deploy_website (both deploy a site, one multi-file and one single-file), and get_project versus get_project_files versus list_projects require careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, delete_*, update_*, upload_*, assign_to_project, unassign_from_project, configure_chatbot. There are no camelCase names, vague verbs, or mixed conventions.

Tool Count2/5

At 29 tools, this exceeds the comfortable MCP surface and crosses into the 'too many' range. The breadth is somewhat justified by the number of subdomains (projects, files, forms, data, bookings, chatbot, media), but several getters and listers could be consolidated without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a full website build lifecycle: account checks, content modeling, media upload, deploy, assignment, chatbot configuration, and post-deploy file edits. Minor gaps remain: booking pages and form settings are intentionally read-only via the MCP, and there is no chatbot deletion or teardown tool.

Resources