MCP server for Vibie — deploy static folders to permanent *.vibie.page URLs from Claude Desktop / Cursor / any MCP-compatible client.
npx vibie-mcp setupAuto-detects Claude Desktop (Windows Store + APPDATA / macOS / Linux) and Cursor (~/.cursor/mcp.json) configs, then adds the vibie entry. Restart the client and you're done.
If auto setup doesn't fit your client, add this to your MCP config (claude_desktop_config.json, ~/.cursor/mcp.json, etc.):
{
"mcpServers": {
"vibie": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "vibie-mcp"]
}
}
}After saving, fully quit and restart your client.
Related MCP server: VibeKit MCP
On first tool call, the server initiates an OAuth 2.0 Device Authorization Grant. Your AI will receive instructions like:
Please open https://vibie.io/device?code=XXXX-YYYY in a browser, sign in with Google, and click Authorize. Then ask me to try again.
After authorizing in the browser, ask your AI to retry the same request. The server stores a token in ~/.vibie/credentials.json (chmod 0600) and reuses it for future calls.
You can revoke the token anytime at https://vibie.io/settings/api.
vibie_create_site — Upload a folder and create a new Vibie site. Auto-writes .vibie/site.json in the folder so future updates use the same site.
vibie_update_site — Re-deploy to an existing site. Reads slug from .vibie/site.json if not specified.
vibie_list_sites — List sites under your account.
vibie_get_site — Metadata for one site by slug.
You: "Deploy this folder to vibie"
AI: → vibie_create_site({ folder: "." })
→ Returns: https://my-folder-x7f2.vibie.page
You: "Push my changes"
AI: Detects .vibie/site.json
→ vibie_update_site({ folder: "." })
→ Same URL, new contentWhat gets uploaded from a folder:
index.html + style.css + js/, assets/, etc — all included
Hidden files (.git, .vibie, .DS_Store) — automatically skipped
node_modules/ — skipped
Limits: 100 MB per site, 500 files per upload, 25 MB per file (Vibie's server validates)
A single HTML file (any name) also works — it gets auto-renamed to index.html on upload.
Variable | Default | Purpose |
|
| Override for local dev ( |
MIT
Create a NEW Vibie site by uploading a local folder. Use this when the user wants to publish a brand new site, or when no .vibie/site.json marker exists in the folder. Vibie hosts static HTML/CSS/JS at a permanent URL like my-site-a3f9.vibie.page. Auto-creates a .vibie/site.json marker in the folder for future updates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | Absolute or relative path to the folder containing index.html (or a single HTML file). Required. | |
| name | No | Display name. Defaults to folder name. | |
| category | No | Category id (portfolio / wedding / landing / event / game / photo / linkbio / misc). Defaults to misc. | |
| is_public | No | Whether the site appears in the public gallery. Defaults to true. | |
| note | No | Optional deployment note (changelog-style). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses auto-creation of a .vibie/site.json marker and the permanent URL pattern. However, it does not mention that the folder must contain index.html or a single HTML file, which is a required input detail from the schema. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core action, usage context, hosting detail, side effect. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, yet description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., site ID, URL). Important for an agent to know the result. Also missing error conditions or permissions. Incomplete for a creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'folder' parameter with 'upload a local folder' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a NEW Vibie site by uploading a local folder', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (get, list, update) by focusing exclusively on creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this when the user wants to publish a brand new site, or when no .vibie/site.json marker exists in the folder.' This gives clear conditions and implies alternatives (e.g., update_site for existing markers).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get metadata for a single Vibie site by slug. Returns name, category, URL, visibility, like count, timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Site slug, e.g. my-site-a3f9 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes a read operation returning specific fields, but does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or any side effects. Adequate for a simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and resource. No unnecessary words, directly conveys what the tool does and what it returns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return fields. However, it lacks error context (e.g., missing slug) or any additional usage constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the slug parameter. The tool description does not add new information beyond the schema (e.g., format validation). Baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get metadata for a single Vibie site by slug', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create, list, and update by focusing on retrieval of a single site.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage when needing metadata for a specific site, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this over vibie_list_sites or other alternatives. No exclusion or comparison given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all sites owned by the current Vibie user. Returns slug, display name, category, URL, visibility, and last update time. Use this to discover what sites the user already has, e.g. before update.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the specific fields returned. It lacks details on potential pagination or auth requirements, but for a simple list operation, it is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence covers purpose and output, the second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential purpose and returned fields for a simple list tool. It could mention pagination or limits, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. Baseline is 4 per rules, and the description provides useful context about returned fields beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all sites'), the resource ('owned by the current Vibie user'), and the returned fields. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like vibie_create_site or vibie_update_site.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case ('e.g. before update'), implying when to use this tool. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update an existing Vibie site with new content from a local folder. Use this when the user wants to re-deploy or push changes to an already-published site. If .vibie/site.json marker exists in the folder, the slug is read automatically; otherwise pass slug explicitly. Same URL, new content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | Folder to upload. Required. | |
| slug | No | Site slug to update (e.g. my-site-a3f9). If omitted, read from .vibie/site.json in folder. | |
| note | No | Optional deployment note (changelog-style). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'new content' and 'same URL', implying content replacement, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or what happens to other site settings. Some behavioral context is present but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and key parameter behavior. It does not specify return values or confirmation, but given the simplicity of an update operation, the information is largely sufficient. Missing minimal context on result details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters described in schema). The description adds value by explaining the automatic slug reading behavior from .vibie/site.json, but the other parameters (folder, note) are already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (update) and resource (existing Vibie site), and distinguishes from sibling tools like vibie_create_site by noting this is for re-deploying or pushing changes to an already-published site with the same URL.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states when to use ('when the user wants to re-deploy or push changes to an already-published site') and provides guidance on slug handling, automatically read from .vibie/site.json or passed explicitly, which orients the agent on usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.2.1vibie_create_sitevibie_get_sitevibie_list_sitesvibie_update_siteEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create, get (single), list (all), and update. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent 'vibie_verb_noun' snake_case pattern. The prefix and structure are predictable and uniform.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing Vibie sites. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or insufficiency.
The set covers create, read (single and list), and update, which are core operations. Only missing delete, which is a minor gap.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Publish AI-generated HTML to a live page on your own domain — from Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor.
Deploy HTML or dist/ to a live HTTPS URL. No account. Drop, MCP, or CLI.
Publish AI-generated HTML to a private, unguessable link, straight from Claude or ChatGPT.
Publish HTML from Claude or ChatGPT to a live URL with a QR code — no developer needed.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shdomi8599/vibie-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
