Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Gemmein

by com.gemmein
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Ask to put a site version live

site_promote
Destructive

Asks the founder to approve putting one Development version of the site (its number from site_status) on the public Live site, https://.gemmein.dev — the same files, copied; never new ones. The founder approves it in their browser, with the code Gemmein emails, and approving it carries it out, once; live_action_status (wait: true) answers PUBLISHED (env live) or FAILED. Refused before the app is live (not_live): until then there is only the Development site. Returns the approval link for the founder and a handle for live_action_status. This is what a founder may call putting the website live or making it real.

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": {
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "site_promote"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoone sentence for your human, shown under Gemmein's own summary
versionYesthe Development version to put live

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds a lot beyond the annotations: the approval is out-of-band in the founder's browser with a code Gemmein emails, approving executes it once (consistent with idempotentHint=false), files are copied and never new ones (clarifying destructive semantics), and the possible outcomes are PUBLISHED (env live) or FAILED. The not_live refusal and the returned approval link plus handle are also disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the copy-not-new-files constraint, with no filler paragraphs. It is a single dense block though, and the closing sentence about what a founder might call this is useful for intent matching but slightly redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers what is returned (approval link and a handle for live_action_status), who performs the approval, how the result is confirmed, and the pre-live refusal. An agent has everything needed to invoke and follow up 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a real hint: 'version' is the number obtained from site_status, which the schema does not say. The 'note' parameter is left entirely to its schema entry.

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 and resource: it asks the founder to approve promoting one Development version of the site to the Live site, including the exact resulting URL template. It distinguishes the flow from a direct publish by describing the emailed-code approval step, though it never names the closest siblings (site_publish, request_promote) so the agent must infer the split.

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?

Gives clear preconditions and a failure mode: it is refused with not_live while the app is not yet live, and the outcome must be polled via live_action_status (wait: true). It also lists the phrasings a founder may use ('putting the website live'). It stops short of saying when to prefer this over site_publish or request_promote.

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

All Gemmein toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources