VibeKit

VibeKit Submit Task

vibekit_submit_task

Submit an autonomous coding task. The AI writes the code, commits to GitHub, and (by default) deploys to .vibekit.page. Returns a taskId — poll vibekit_get_task or block with vibekit_wait_for_task. Use for 'build X' or 'change X' work against a repo.

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": {
      "task": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "vibekit_submit_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	No	GitHub repo as 'owner/repo'. Optional — uses the user's current repo if omitted.
`task`	Yes	What you want built or changed. Be specific about features, design, and behavior.
`branch`	No	Git branch to work on (default 'main')
`deploy`	No	Auto-deploy to <subdomain>.vibekit.page when done (default true)
`callbackUrl`	No	Optional webhook URL to receive a task-completion notification.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether the call succeeded.
`data`	No	The created task: taskId and initial status.
`error`	No	Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / deploy / description

Previous value: -"Auto-deploy to <subdomain>.vibekit.bot when done (default true)"New value: +"Auto-deploy to <subdomain>.vibekit.page when done (default true)"

Changed1 schema field changedJul 17, 2026

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": "The created task: taskId and initial status."
+    },
+    "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"
+}

First observedJul 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false), the description discloses the significant side effects: autonomous code writing, a GitHub commit, and an on-by-default deployment to a public subdomain. It also notes that the call is asynchronous and returns a taskId rather than a result. It does not mention required repo permissions or how long tasks typically take.

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 with the core action first, followed by the outcome, then the required follow-up call. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 an asynchronous mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential agent-facing facts: what it does, its external side effects, the default deploy behavior, and how to retrieve results. Missing only secondary details such as auth prerequisites and rough task duration, which keeps it just short of complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters including repo, task, branch, deploy, and callbackUrl are already documented with defaults. The description only reinforces the deploy-by-default behavior and does not add syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 description names a specific verb and resource ('Submit an autonomous coding task') and spells out the full activity chain: AI writes code, commits to GitHub, deploys to <subdomain>.vibekit.page. It distinguishes itself from vibekit_get_task and vibekit_wait_for_task, but does not explicitly mark its boundary against other plausible siblings like vibekit_chat, vibekit_deploy, or vibekit_create_app.

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 gives concrete usage triggers ('build X' or 'change X' work against a repo) and clear next-step routing: poll vibekit_get_task or block with vibekit_wait_for_task. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, such as whether to use vibekit_chat for small edits or vibekit_deploy for redeploying existing code.

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

All VibeKit tools Inspect

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.