Skip to main content
Glama

harvis.dev

by dev.harvis

deploy_site

Publish a static website to harvis.dev and get a live public URL back instantly. No account or authentication is needed. Pass every file of the site (HTML, CSS, JS, images...) with its path relative to the site root; include an index.html. Returns the live site 'url' plus a private 'claimUrl' — always show the user BOTH links and tell them to open claimUrl and sign in (free) to attach the site to their account so they can edit or delete it later. Warn them claimUrl is private and cannot be recovered if lost. The result also includes a private deployToken: pass it back on a later call to UPDATE that site in place (works before and after claiming) instead of creating a new one. The token identifies the site by itself; passing the subdomain too is optional and guards against updating the wrong site.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOptional human-friendly site name.
filesYesEvery file of the site. Total size limit: 50 MB.
subdomainNoTo UPDATE an existing site instead of creating a new one: the site's subdomain from an earlier deploy. Requires deployToken.
deployTokenNoThe site's private deploy token returned by the deploy that created it (also shown in the dashboard). Requires subdomain.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements, return values (url, claimUrl, deployToken), privacy warnings, and update semantics. However, the claim that subdomain is optional conflicts with the schema's requirement, creating a minor transparency gap.

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 longer than ideal but well-structured, front-loading the primary action. Each sentence has a purpose, though some repetition with schema parameter descriptions could be trimmed.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers all return values and usage flows, including update behavior and user instructions. It lacks error case details and contains the subdomain contradiction, but overall is quite complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides 100% coverage. The description adds guidance about file paths and index.html, but it contradicts the schema by saying subdomain is optional when schema says deployToken requires subdomain. This inconsistency could mislead an agent.

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 clearly states the tool publishes a static website to harvis.dev and returns a live public URL. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes the initial deploy from the update use case.

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?

Explicitly explains when to publish (no account needed) and when to update (pass deployToken on a later call). It also instructs to include index.html and pass all files, providing concrete usage context.

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

All harvis.dev 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
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of selecting the wrong tool. The tool's purpose is clearly described and distinct by default.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'deploy_site' follows a clear verb_noun convention, which is consistent even with just one tool.

Tool Count3/5

The server has one substantial tool that handles deployment and update, but a single tool feels thin for a deployment service, placing it at the borderline of appropriate scope.

Completeness2/5

The tool covers deploy and update but lacks separate operations for listing, deleting, or otherwise managing sites. The claim workflow depends on manual external steps, leaving significant lifecycle gaps for automated agents.

Resources