Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Xyvenra

by io.github.LAHutchins91
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Deploy site

deploy

Publish self-contained HTML to a Cloud site this account owns. Pass projectId instead of html to send a saved Studio page. Public env vars for that site are written into the static page. Private values are not. Cloud is not a Node host. ZIP uploads stay on POST /api/cloud/v1/{siteId} with a Cloud deploy key.

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": {
      "siteId": "<siteId>"
    },
    "name": "deploy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlNoComplete self-contained HTML document, 180 KB or smaller.
siteIdYesCloud site UUID.
projectIdNoOptional Studio project UUID. Sends that saved page instead of html.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavior beyond that: public env vars are baked into the static page while private ones are not, and runtime hosting (Node) is out of scope. It says nothing about what a deploy returns, whether it replaces or versions prior content, or what auth/deploy-key requirements apply to this path.

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 core action and its two content sources are front-loaded, and the constraint sentences are short and each carry a distinct rule. The telegraphic phrasing ('Public env vars... Private values are not.') is efficient but slightly terse, and the trailing REST-endpoint note is close to noise for an agent that cannot call raw HTTP.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description owes the agent some indication of the deploy result (URL, deployment id, status) and it provides none. Combined with silence on overwrite behavior and auth requirements, the definition is adequate to invoke the tool but leaves the agent guessing about the outcome of a mutating call.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the projectId 'instead of html' note and the 180 KB html limit. The description restates the projectId/html precedence rather than adding new semantics such as precedence when both are supplied or what happens on size overflow, so the 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Publish self-contained HTML to a Cloud site this account owns') and adds an ownership scoping condition. It clearly contrasts the html path with the projectId path, though it does not position itself against any sibling tool by name.

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?

It states an explicit either/or for the two content sources ('Pass projectId instead of html') and rules out two cases: Cloud is not a Node host, and ZIP uploads belong on the REST endpoint instead. No exclusions regarding account permissions or site state are given, so it is clear context without being a full when/when-not guide.

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

All Xyvenra 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