Skip to main content
Glama
tasklite-net

TaskLite MCP

by tasklite-net
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

deploy_frontend

Deploy a static frontend to TaskLite hosting to get a live HTTPS URL. Provide files inline, a public zip URL, or a local build output folder.

Instructions

Deploy a static frontend to TaskLite hosting and get a live URL https://{slug}.tasklite.dev (HTTPS, auto-published on first deploy, versions kept for rollback_deployment). Hand over the frontend in ONE of three ways: files — the files inline (path + content), the way to go from ChatGPT or any hosted client: write index.html and its assets, then deploy in the same turn; zipUrl — a public https URL of a zip (a Lovable/Bolt export, a GitHub release asset); dir — a build output folder on this machine (only when the MCP runs locally next to the files). In the frontend, call the app API via relative /api/{endpoint} — the hosting proxy injects the app identity, so no key ships to the browser.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dirNoLocal path to the BUILD OUTPUT directory (the one containing index.html), not the project root. Only where the MCP runs on the same machine as the files
appIdYesApp UUID or slug (app-xxxxxx) — see list_apps
filesNoThe site files inline. Must include index.html. Up to 500 files / 8MB decoded — right for a frontend written in the conversation
zipUrlNoPublic https URL of a zip of the BUILD OUTPUT (index.html at the root, or inside a single top-level folder). Up to 50MB
organizationIdNoOrganization id; defaults to the credential organization when omitted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.13.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / dir / description
      Previous value: -"Path to the BUILD OUTPUT directory (the one containing index.html), not the project root"New value: +"Local path to the BUILD OUTPUT directory (the one containing index.html), not the project root. Only where the MCP runs on the same machine as the files"
    • addedInput schema / properties / files
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The site files inline. Must include index.html. Up to 500 files / 8MB decoded — right for a frontend written in the conversation",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "content": {
+        "description": "File content. Text as-is; binary as base64 with encoding \"base64\"",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "encoding": {
+        "description": "Default utf8",
+        "enum": [
+          "utf8",
+          "base64"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "path": {
+        "description": "Path inside the site, e.g. \"index.html\", \"app.js\", \"css/style.css\"",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "path",
+      "content"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 500,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / organizationId / description
      Added value: +"Organization id; defaults to the credential organization when omitted"
    • addedInput schema / properties / zipUrl
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public https URL of a zip of the BUILD OUTPUT (index.html at the root, or inside a single top-level folder). Up to 50MB",
+  "format": "uri",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "appId",
-  "dir"
-]New value: +[
+  "appId"
+]
  2. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

It discloses behavior beyond the annotations: auto-publishing on first deploy, version retention for rollback, HTTPS and live URL, and the proxy behavior that injects app identity via /api so no API key reaches the browser. These are meaningful context details and do not contradict the provided annotations.

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 dense but efficiently organized: the core purpose and URL format come first, followed by mode-specific guidance and a final note about API routing. Every sentence provides operational value, with no filler or redundant restating of schema content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: deployment modes, eligibility conditions, file constraints, resulting URL, versioning behavior, and how the deployed frontend should call the API. This is a complete and self-sufficient definition.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While schema coverage is already 100%, the description adds decision-relevant meaning beyond the raw parameter descriptions. It explains when each deployment mode should be used, gives concrete examples like Lovable/Bolt exports, and adds constraints like file counts and sizes that reinforce and extend the schema.

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 opens with a specific action and outcome: 'Deploy a static frontend to TaskLite hosting and get a live URL'. It clearly identifies the resource and result, and it distinguishes itself from related tools like rollback_deployment by mentioning version retention.

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 explicitly enumerates the three accepted input modes and the conditions for choosing each: files for hosted clients/ChatGPT, zipUrl for Lovable/Bolt exports or GitHub release assets, and dir only when the MCP runs locally. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and even hints at when rollback_deployment would be relevant.

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