Skip to main content
Glama

deploy_project

Deploy web projects to live branded URLs on AICre8 platform by providing project files and ID for instant hosting.

Instructions

Deploy the project to a live branded URL (e.g. my-project.aicre8.app). Pass a map of file paths to contents. Use b64 prefix for binary file content.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID (UUID or url_id)
filesYesMap of file paths to content. Binary files: prefix content with "__b64__" followed by base64 data.

Implementation Reference

  • The deployProject method is the core handler that executes the tool logic by making an HTTP POST request to /projects/${projectId}/deploy with the files payload, returning deployment details including deploy_id, site_id, url, and status.
    async deployProject(
      projectId: string,
      files: Record<string, string>,
    ): Promise<{
      deploy_id: string;
      site_id: string;
      url: string;
      netlify_url: string;
      status: string;
      files_uploaded: number;
      files_total: number;
    }> {
      return this.request('POST', `/projects/${projectId}/deploy`, { files });
    }
  • Input validation schema using Zod that defines the tool parameters: project_id (string UUID or url_id) and files (record mapping file paths to content, with special __b64__ prefix support for binary files).
    {
      project_id: z.string().describe('Project ID (UUID or url_id)'),
      files: z
        .record(z.string(), z.string())
        .describe(
          'Map of file paths to content. Binary files: prefix content with "__b64__" followed by base64 data.',
        ),
    },
  • src/index.ts:227-253 (registration)
    Registration of the deploy_project tool with the MCP server using server.tool(), including the tool name, description, input schema, and the async handler that calls client.deployProject and formats the response.
    server.tool(
      'deploy_project',
      'Deploy the project to a live branded URL (e.g. my-project.aicre8.app). Pass a map of file paths to contents. Use __b64__ prefix for binary file content.',
      {
        project_id: z.string().describe('Project ID (UUID or url_id)'),
        files: z
          .record(z.string(), z.string())
          .describe(
            'Map of file paths to content. Binary files: prefix content with "__b64__" followed by base64 data.',
          ),
      },
      async (params) => {
        try {
          const result = await client.deployProject(params.project_id, params.files);
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: 'text' as const,
                text: `Deployed successfully!\n\nURL: ${result.url}\nFiles uploaded: ${result.files_uploaded}/${result.files_total}\nStatus: ${result.status}`,
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (err: any) {
          return { content: [{ type: 'text' as const, text: `Error: ${err.message}` }], isError: true };
        }
      },
    );
  • The private request method is a supporting utility that handles HTTP requests with proper authentication headers, JSON serialization, and error handling for all API calls including the deployProject operation.
    private async request<T>(
      method: string,
      path: string,
      body?: unknown,
    ): Promise<T> {
      const url = `${this.baseUrl}${path}`;
    
      const res = await fetch(url, {
        method,
        headers: this.headers,
        body: body ? JSON.stringify(body) : undefined,
      });
    
      if (!res.ok) {
        const error = await res.json().catch(() => ({ error: res.statusText }));
        throw new Error(
          `AICre8 API error ${res.status}: ${(error as any).error || res.statusText}`,
        );
      }
    
      return res.json() as Promise<T>;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the deployment action and file handling details, implying a write/mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical traits: whether deployment is reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., URL generation, error handling). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific implementation details. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and file handling. It's appropriately sized for a 2-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for file rules).

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (deployment mutation with file handling), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., success status, generated URL), error conditions, or side effects. For a tool that likely alters system state and involves binary data, more context is needed to be adequately helpful.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('project_id' and 'files') thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by reiterating the file map structure and binary file prefix ('__b64__'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the action ('Deploy the project') and target ('to a live branded URL'), specifying the resource (project) and outcome (live URL). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project' or 'write_file' by focusing on deployment rather than creation or file operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential deployment-related siblings (none listed), keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_project' for initial setup or 'run_command' for other deployment methods. It mentions file handling specifics but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., must have a project created first) or exclusions (e.g., not for testing). This lack of contextual usage advice results in a low score.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AICre8dev/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server