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.bot. 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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.bot when done (default true)
`callbackUrl`	No	Optional webhook URL to receive a task-completion notification.

Output Schema

TableJSON 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, description adds key behavior: code is written, committed, and optionally deployed. Mentions default deploy behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences: purpose, flow, usage. No redundancy, front-loaded with core action.

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?

Covers core functionality, return type (taskId), and mentions related tools for follow-up. Output schema exists, so return details are not needed. Adequate for a 5-param tool with one required param.

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 parameters are already well-documented. Description adds marginal value by summarizing defaults (e.g., branch default 'main', deploy default true) but largely echoes schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Submit an autonomous coding task' and explains that the AI writes code, commits, and deploys. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vibekit_get_task and vibekit_wait_for_task by mentioning the returned taskId and polling/blocking options.

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?

Explicitly suggests using for 'build X' or 'change X' work against a repo. Provides context on polling/blocking alternatives but lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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

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.

VibeKit Submit Task

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources