Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TeamOnly

TeamOnly

by sohelsd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Deploy the app

deploy

Builds an app from a specified directory and publishes it online behind your company login; returns sign-in guidance when authentication is required.

Instructions

Builds the app in "directory" and puts it online at https://..teamonly.app, behind the company login. Takes up to a minute. If the person is not signed in, the result says what to do (use sign_in).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "deploy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
directoryNoAbsolute path of the app's folder (the one with teamonly.json). Defaults to the folder the server started in.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint, so the description does the behavioral work: it discloses the expected duration (up to a minute), the required company login, and that a not-signed-in result carries a remediation pointer. It omits what happens to a prior deployment or what a failure result looks like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what happens and where it lands, then timing, then the failure path. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly sketches the result shape for the auth failure case, but says nothing about success output or partial-failure behaviour. Adequate for a single-parameter deploy tool with slight gaps.

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 documents the single directory parameter fully (absolute path, the teamonly.json marker, default behaviour), at 100% coverage. The description only names the parameter in passing and adds no meaning beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (builds) plus the concrete effect (puts it online at a templated URL) and the access model (behind the company login). An agent can tell this apart from status, logs, or delete_app without opening the schema.

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 routes the not-signed-in case to the sign_in sibling, which is real conditional guidance. It does not say when NOT to deploy (e.g. after incomplete setup, or when a deploy is already running), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools