Extend MCP

Get file metadata, download URL, or parsed contents

get_file

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a file's metadata and a fresh presigned download URL — expires in ~15 minutes, re-call to refresh (files group). Set contents to also return parsed text; contents: null means "not parsed yet", not an error (run parse_document first). Split-produced child files carry parentSplit (source file, page range) in metadata. Follow any llmContext guidance included in results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fileId`	Yes	file_... ID.
`contents`	No	Which parsed representation to include, when available. Default "none".
`maxChars`	No	Truncation cap for returned contents (default 50000).
`environment`	Yes	"TEST" = the Test (development) environment, "PRODUCTION" = live. Must match a granted target from get_me (an API key pins one environment).
`workspaceId`	Yes	Target workspace (ws_...). Must be a granted workspace — get_me lists the accepted values.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`type`	No
`contents`	No
`metadata`	No
`truncated`	No
`parentFileId`	No
`presignedUrl`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the presigned URL expires in about 15 minutes and requires a re-call to refresh, null contents means 'not parsed yet' rather than an error, split-produced children carry parentSplit metadata, and llmContext guidance should be followed. This goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints and meaningfully informs agent behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds only high-value caveats: expiry, parsed-content semantics, parentSplit metadata, and llmContext. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

For a read-only file retrieval tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the important behavioral nuances an agent needs: URL expiry and refresh, contents semantics, parentSplit metadata, and following llmContext. Nothing critical for correct invocation or interpretation appears to be missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that contents: null is a state, not an error, and explaining the freshness/expiry semantics of the returned URL. This supplements the schema's enum and descriptions without duplicating them.

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 names a specific verb and resource: get a file's metadata, presigned download URL, and optionally parsed contents. It also scopes itself to the files group, distinguishing it from related tools like list_files and get_file_upload. The purpose is immediately clear and distinct from sibling tools.

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?

The description gives clear context on when to set contents and explicitly tells the agent to run parse_document first when contents are null, which is useful routing guidance. It does not enumerate exclusions against every file-related sibling, but it provides enough direction for correct tool selection.

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

All Extend MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource+action combination, and the descriptions actively disambiguate potential overlaps (e.g., extract_data vs parse_document, detect_form_fields vs edit_pdf, get_file vs get_file_upload). The consistent verb_noun prefix pattern makes the semantic boundary of every tool immediately recognizable.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant verb_noun pattern is highly consistent across all nine domains (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, delete_*, run_*, get_*_run, get_*_batch, publish_*_version). Minor deviations exist: deploy_workflow_version vs publish_*_version for the same freeze-a-draft concept, and get_form_detection_run doesn't mirror its detect_form_fields counterpart.

Tool Count2/5

86 tools is a very heavy agent-facing surface, well past the 25+ threshold. The count is inflated by the near-identical 13-tool lifecycle repeated across extract, classify, and split (each with list/get/create/update/publish/runs/batches/versions), and while each tool has a distinct purpose, the sheer volume makes selection harder.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycles are thoroughly covered: create → update → publish → run (single and batch) → poll → cancel → delete-run → list runs/versions. Notable gaps include no delete tool for extractors, classifiers, splitters, workflows, or evaluation sets, and edit/form-detection runs have no list endpoint (documented workaround: keep run IDs). These are hygenic gaps that don't block primary workflows.

Resources

Need Help?