Skip to main content
Glama

Dplooy

Update project files

update_project_files
Destructive

EDIT a deployed site — call get_project_files first, never edit from memory. PREFERRED: targeted edits ({ path, oldString, newString }) — you send only the changed text, and the server verifies oldString against the ACTUAL live file (exactly one match required), so a stale copy can never overwrite anything. Use files (full content) only for rewrites or new files, deletePaths for removals. Every file you do NOT name is guaranteed untouched — deletions never happen by omission. All-or-nothing: any failed match or invalid path rejects the whole patch with nothing changed. Text files only (HTML/CSS/JS) — images live in the Media Library. Single-file projects accept edits to their one file (path "/"); adding/deleting files is multi-file only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
editsNoPREFERRED for changes: find-and-replace verified against the live file — costs only the changed text, never the whole file
filesNoFull-content replacement — ONLY for complete rewrites or brand-new files; use edits for changes
projectIdYesThe project ID (from list_projects or get_project)
deletePathsNoPaths to remove from the site (multi-file projects only). The entry page can never be deleted.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), but the description adds crucial behavioral detail: oldString is verified against the actual live file, exactly one match is required, the operation is all-or-nothing, untouched files are guaranteed unmodified, and only text files are supported. 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the main purpose, then the prerequisite, then preferred mode, then alternatives and edge cases. Despite its length, it is well organized and scannable, with no 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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers preparation, mode selection, failure semantics, atomicity guarantees, file-type limitations, and project-type restrictions. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter well. The description adds meaningful extra semantics: preference for targeted edits over full rewrites, the single-file path '/' case, and multi-file-only restrictions for adding/deleting files. This goes beyond the schema without duplicating it.

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 'EDIT a deployed site', giving a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes this from read-only tools like get_project_files. It also separates its modes (edits, files, deletePaths) internally, so an agent immediately understands what each mode does.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to call get_project_files first and never edit from memory. It gives clear instructions on when to use targeted edits, full-file replacement, and deletePaths, and redirects images to the Media Library. This is model guidance for when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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

Try in Browser

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