Skip to main content
Glama

Layero

by ru.layero.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin
This connector has been deprecated

Duplicate listing of the same server under an old namespace. The maintained listing is Layero (ru.layero/layero): same endpoint https://mcp.layero.ru/mcp, current description and tools. The landing-page generator described here was removed in MCP 2.0.

Откатить сайт на прошлую сборку

rollback
Destructive

Put the previous working build back on the live address.

CHANGES WHAT VISITORS SEE — ask the person before calling unless they
asked for a rollback explicitly. The action is reversible (you can roll
forward again), but the time visitors spent on the wrong version cannot
be taken back.

⚠️ For apps (`ssr_next`, `node_web`, `python_web`, `streamlit`, `gradio`,
`flask`) a rollback works differently from static sites and is often
impossible: an app has no ready artifact to simply switch to. If the
platform refuses, explain that to the person plainly and suggest
rebuilding the earlier commit — do not repeat the call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deployNoid of the build to roll back to. Without it the platform takes the nearest suitable earlier one.
projectYesThe project: its slug (`my-site`) or id, as listed by `my_projects`. The site address works too (`https://clear-garden-vypm.layero.app` or just `clear-garden-vypm`) — note that the address host is NOT always the slug.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
projectYes
deploy_idYes
next_actionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / deploy / description
      Previous value: -"id сборки, на которую откатываем. Без него платформа берёт ближайшую пригодную из предыдущих."New value: +"id of the build to roll back to. Without it the platform takes the nearest suitable earlier one."
    • changedInput schema / properties / project / description
      Previous value: -"Проект: слаг (`my-site`) или id. Слаг — то, что видно в адресе сайта; если пользователь назвал сайт словами, возьми слаг из `my_projects`."New value: +"The project: its slug (`my-site`) or id, as listed by `my_projects`. The site address works too (`https://clear-garden-vypm.layero.app` or just `clear-garden-vypm`) — note that the address host is NOT always the slug."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and open-world, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it changes what visitors see, is reversible in one sense but not in lost visitor time, and behaves differently for app deployments. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, but every section earns its place: the visitor-impact warning, the reversibility nuance, and the app-specific caveat are all essential. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the structure is clear. Slightly more verbose than necessary, hence 4.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with only two parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary operational context: what it does, when to call, risks, failure modes, and fallback behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, and both parameters already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not need to repeat that information. It adds no significant parameter-level semantics, so a baseline 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 a specific action and resource: 'Put the previous working build back on the live address.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like retry_deploy or cancel_deploy, which deal with deploys differently. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use context, instructs the agent to ask the person before calling unless explicitly requested, and provides detailed guidance for app-type projects where rollback often fails, including what to do instead and not to repeat the call. This is strong usage guidance.

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

All Layero 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