Vercel MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Tools like cancelDeployment, deleteDeployment, getDeployment, and getDeployments target specific actions on deployments, while getDeploymentEvents, getDeploymentFileContents, and listDeploymentFiles handle related but separate data retrieval tasks. The descriptions reinforce these distinctions, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
The tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, using camelCase uniformly. All tools start with a verb (cancel, delete, get, list) followed by a noun (Deployment, DeploymentEvents, DeploymentFileContents, etc.), with no deviations or mixed conventions. This predictability aids in agent comprehension and usage.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing Vercel deployments. Each tool earns its place by covering essential operations like listing, retrieving, canceling, deleting, and accessing deployment-related data (events, files, contents). This count is neither too thin nor excessive, fitting typical deployment management workflows effectively.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides strong CRUD/lifecycle coverage for deployments, including create (implied via deployment actions), read (get, list), update (cancel as a state change), and delete operations. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for creating or triggering deployments, but agents can likely work around this given the focus on post-deployment management.
Average 2.6/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, whether rate limits apply, what happens if the file doesn't exist, or what format the contents are returned in. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It fails to front-load important information and doesn't use its limited space effectively. A truly concise description would pack more operational context into the same or fewer words, whereas this feels incomplete rather than efficiently crafted.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't help the agent understand what kind of file contents are returned (text, binary, structured data), what errors might occur, or how this tool fits into the broader deployment workflow with its sibling tools. The description provides minimal context for what appears to be a non-trivial file retrieval operation.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 4 parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of valid values, or clarify why certain parameters are required while others are optional. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage with no additional value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets deployment file contents' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'getDeploymentFileContents' without adding meaningful specificity. While it correctly identifies the verb ('Gets') and resource ('deployment file contents'), it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'listDeploymentFiles' or provide any additional context about what type of file contents are retrieved or their format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'getDeployment' or 'listDeploymentFiles'. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific file retrieval tool should be selected over other deployment-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Lists deployments' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
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 maximally concise at just two words, with zero wasted language. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the description is perfectly structured and front-loaded with the core action.
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?
For a tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the relationship between similar parameters (like 'from/to' vs 'since/until'), doesn't indicate typical use cases, and provides no information about the return format or error conditions.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 12 parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage. However, it doesn't provide any higher-level guidance about parameter relationships or typical usage patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lists deployments' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'getDeployments' without adding meaningful specificity. While it correctly identifies the verb ('Lists') and resource ('deployments'), it fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'getDeployment' (singular) or provide any scope information about what kind of deployments are listed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'getDeployment' (singular), 'cancelDeployment', and 'deleteDeployment', there's no indication that this tool lists multiple deployments while 'getDeployment' retrieves a specific one, or when filtering vs. direct retrieval is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Cancels' implies a mutation, but it doesn't specify effects like whether it stops processes, requires permissions, or has side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that likely alters system state without safety cues.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Cancels a deployment', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently states the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, usage context, or return values, leaving gaps in understanding how to invoke it safely or interpret results, especially given sibling tools.
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 all three parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between 'deploymentId', 'slug', and 'teamId'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Cancels a deployment') with a clear verb and resource, but it's vague about what 'cancel' entails compared to siblings like 'deleteDeployment'. It doesn't distinguish this tool from alternatives, leaving ambiguity about whether cancellation is reversible or different from deletion.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'deleteDeployment' and 'getDeployment', the description lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, such as whether it applies only to active deployments or has specific conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Deletes' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, confirmation steps, side effects (e.g., whether associated resources are removed), or error handling. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 extremely concise with 'Deletes a deployment'—a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what deletion entails (permanent vs. reversible), prerequisites, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more descriptive detail is needed to guide safe and correct usage.
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%, with all parameters documented in the input schema (e.g., 'deploymentId' as required). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes a deployment' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (deployment), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'cancelDeployment', which might serve a similar destructive purpose but with different semantics. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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. There are multiple sibling tools (e.g., 'cancelDeployment', 'getDeployment'), but the description doesn't explain when deletion is appropriate versus cancellation or retrieval. No context or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 only states the action ('Lists') without details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or output format (e.g., list of file names vs. full metadata). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity, as it lacks critical operational context.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Lists deployment files', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely returns a list of files (implied by 'Lists'), the description is incomplete. It does not address what the output includes (e.g., file names, sizes, types) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with three parameters and potential complexity, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
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%, with all parameters documented in the schema (deploymentId, slug, teamId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., slug vs. teamId) or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lists deployment files' states the basic action (list) and resource (deployment files), which provides a minimal viable purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'deployment files' entails (e.g., file metadata, paths, types) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'getDeploymentFileContents' or 'getDeployment', making it vague but functional.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a deployment ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as 'getDeploymentFileContents' (which likely retrieves file content) or 'getDeployment' (which might provide deployment metadata). This leaves usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the tool 'Gets' a deployment, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in deployment retrieval.
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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'deployment' entails, the return format, or behavioral aspects like authentication needs. For a tool with 4 parameters and sibling tools, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying 'deploymentId' can be an ID or URL, but this is already covered in the schema. No additional semantics are provided for other parameters like 'slug' or 'withGitRepoInfo'.
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 ('Gets') and resource ('a deployment'), specifying it retrieves by 'ID or URL'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getDeployments' (plural) by focusing on a single deployment, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'getDeploymentEvents' or 'getDeploymentFileContents'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a deployment ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'getDeployments' for listing multiple deployments or 'getDeploymentEvents' for event details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Gets' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (limit parameter), ordering (direction), streaming (follow), or authentication needs. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 high complexity (12 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like filtering, pagination, or return format, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.
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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond implying deploymentId and buildId are key inputs, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics (e.g., how since/until work with direction). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Gets') and resource ('deployment events') with specific identifiers ('by deployment ID and build ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like getDeployment (single deployment) or getDeployments (list), though it could be more explicit about the filtering/retrieval nature.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a deployment ID), exclusions, or compare to siblings like getDeployment (which might return summary vs. events). Usage is implied by the name but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Smileyco.in MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fefergrgrgrg/Smileyco.in/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fefergrgrgrg/Smileyco.in)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Smileyco.in MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fefergrgrgrg/Smileyco.in/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fefergrgrgrg/Smileyco.in)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/fefergrgrgrg/Smileyco.in'

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