Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Faable — Deploy & Auth

by com.faable
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create an app from a repository

create_app

Create an app from a GitHub repository in a project, link it and start its first deploy (the dashboard's Create & connect). Needs the Faable GitHub App installed on the repository; if the link fails, the new app is removed and the error says what to fix.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "create_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoApp name (defaults to the repository name)
repoYesGitHub repository, owner/repo
waitNoWait for the first deploy to be live (returns the URL) or to fail, up to 5 minutes
branchNoBranch to deploy (defaults to the repository default)
deployNoStart the first deploy (default true)
projectNoProject id, name or slug. Defaults to the active project (`faable project use`).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's added value is the failure semantics: if the link fails the newly created app is removed and the error states the fix. That compensation/rollback disclosure is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though permissions and timing are not covered.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action (create, link, deploy) before the prerequisite and the rollback note. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padding.

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?

For a multi-step mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the chained side effects and the failure cleanup path. The only gap is return/shape expectations, which the 'wait' parameter's schema text partly carries.

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 coverage is 100% with all six parameters documented inline, including defaults for name, branch, deploy, project and the 5-minute wait behavior. The description only echoes the first-deploy flow and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource with scope: creates an app from a GitHub repo inside a project and chains link plus first deploy. It even maps itself to the dashboard's 'Create & connect' flow, but it never explicitly separates itself from siblings like link_repo or configure_repo, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a hard prerequisite ('Needs the Faable GitHub App installed on the repository'), which is useful context for whether a call will succeed. However it gives no when-to-use guidance against alternatives such as link_repo for an existing app, so routing is left to inference.

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

All Faable — Deploy & Auth toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources