Skip to main content
Glama

VibeKit

by io.github.VibeKit-Bot

VibeKit Deploy

vibekit_deploy

Deploy a GitHub repo to VibeKit hosting, live at .vibekit.bot (Fargate container behind nginx, SSL automatic). Use when the code already lives in a GitHub repo; for a starter template instead use vibekit_create_app.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesGitHub repo as 'owner/repo' (e.g. 'your-username/my-app')
subdomainYesDesired subdomain — the app goes live at <subdomain>.vibekit.bot. Lowercase letters, numbers, and hyphens.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the call succeeded.
dataNoDeploy result: deployUrl (https://<subdomain>.vibekit.bot) and appId.
errorNoError message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Result envelope: ok=true with data on success, ok=false with error on failure.",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Deploy result: deployUrl (https://<subdomain>.vibekit.bot) and appId."
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error).",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether the call succeeded.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / repo / description
      Previous value: -"GitHub repo as 'owner/repo' (e.g. '609NFT/vibekit')"New value: +"GitHub repo as 'owner/repo' (e.g. 'your-username/my-app')"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds technical details about the infrastructure (Fargate, nginx, SSL) but fails to disclose important behavioral traits like deployment duration, whether it is a replace or update, or potential downtime. With no annotations providing behavioral hints, the description carries full burden and is insufficient.

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?

The description is very concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage guidelines. Every word adds value, no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and the resulting URL. However, it omits details like expected deployment time, idempotency, and potential side effects. Given the tool's complexity (deployment), a 4 is generous.

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% and both parameters are already clearly described in the input schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (deploy a GitHub repo), the destination (VibeKit hosting), and the resulting URL pattern. It differentiates from similar sibling tools like vibekit_create_app, which is for starter templates.

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 tells when to use this tool ('Use when the code already lives in a GitHub repo') and provides an alternative for a different scenario ('for a starter template instead use vibekit_create_app').

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

All VibeKit 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but vibekit_chat and vibekit_submit_task both handle AI-driven code changes, leading to potential confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but overlap exists.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use the 'vibekit_' prefix and lowercase with underscores. Most follow a verb_noun pattern, but a few (e.g., 'vibekit_account') are noun-only, causing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is on the high side, covering many aspects of the platform. While mostly justified, the count feels slightly excessive and could be streamlined.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of apps, databases, tasks, schedules, skills, QA, and environment variables. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.

Resources