Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

The Deployer

by com.thedploy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create a project

create_project

Creates a project from a repository the person's connected code host can read, on one of their connected cloud accounts, and starts the repository scan. Nothing is deployed and nothing costs money yet. With one connected cloud, that one is used; otherwise cloud (a provider) or cloud_connection_id picks it. Needs Operate access.

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_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoThe project's name. Default: the repository's name
repoYesowner/name, or the repository's URL
cloudNo
branchNoThe branch to deploy. Default: the repository's default
workspaceNoA teammate's workspace id. Default: your own.
git_connection_idNo
cloud_connection_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / workspace / description
      Previous value: -"Act in a teammate's workspace: its id from account. Default: your own."New value: +"A teammate's workspace id. Default: your own."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds real behavior on top: a repository scan is kicked off, no deployment occurs, no cost is incurred yet, and Operate access is required. The cloud-selection precedence ('with one connected cloud, that one is used; otherwise...') is exactly the kind of side-effect/selection detail annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its cost/side-effect boundary, then preconditions, then the cloud-resolution rule. No sentence is filler and the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: side effects, cost, auth level, and cloud parameter precedence. It leaves git_connection_id semantics and any indication of what is returned or what happens on scan failure unspecified, which is a modest but real gap.

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 only 57% (cloud, git_connection_id, cloud_connection_id are undocumented in the schema), and the description compensates for the two cloud parameters by explaining how cloud vs cloud_connection_id interact. git_connection_id and workspace remain unexplained beyond the schema, so it does not fully close the gap.

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 ('Creates a project from a repository') and immediately bounds the scope with what it does NOT do ('Nothing is deployed and nothing costs money yet'), which separates it from siblings like launch, plan_deploy, and deployment. An agent can distinguish this from project/check_repo without opening a schema.

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 (repository readable by the person's connected code host, one of their connected cloud accounts, Operate access) and explains the cloud-resolution rule when multiple connections exist. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying when to prefer check_repo or plan_deploy first, so it is clear context rather than explicit routing.

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

All The Deployer 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