iMario

Show a manual image upload

request_manual_upload

Show a manual upload card only when automatic attachment transfer is unavailable. Free.

First try host-provided image_files, or request_upload plus a readable local attachment.
Use this fallback only if neither route is available, an upload failed, or the user asks
to choose a file manually. Explain why another selection is needed. In hosts without cards,
offer manual_upload_url. This creates a link, not an uploaded image; wait for confirmed receipt.
Pass audience_ids and question only for a study the user requested: the card shows its cost
and the user can start it. Otherwise it uploads the image for the assistant to use later.

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": "request_manual_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No	The study the image is for	image_reaction
`label`	No	What the image is, in a few words
`question`	No	The question respondents will be asked
`respondents`	No	Respondents per audience
`audience_ids`	No	Audience ids for the optional study in the card

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	false means the call failed: read `error` and `hint`
`ref`	No	Pass as image_refs once the image has arrived
`hint`	No	What to change, when ok is false
`next`	No	What to do next
`note`	No	Something to tell the user or keep in mind
`error`	No	Error code, when ok is false
`received`	No	false until the image has arrived
`max_bytes`	No
`status_url`	No	GET to check `received`
`upload_url`	No
`curl_command`	No	Run with <PATH_TO_IMAGE> replaced
`upload_state`	No
`accepted_types`	No
`if_upload_fails`	No	Read before sending anything
`manual_upload_url`	No	For a person to upload in a browser
`expires_in_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedOct 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / audience_ids / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / audience_ids / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- addedInput schema / properties / audience_ids / items
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / audience_ids / type
```
Added value: +"array"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / respondents / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "minimum": 1,
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / respondents / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- addedInput schema / properties / respondents / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / respondents / type
```
Added value: +"integer"
```
First observedSep 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare generic hints (readOnly false, idempotent false, destructive false); the description adds real behavioral context beyond them — that the tool creates a link rather than an uploaded image, that receipt must be confirmed before proceeding, that it is free, and that the card displays cost when a study is requested.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the primary constraint (fallback-only) and keeps sentences purposeful, but the dense multi-line form is longer than strictly necessary and the cost/study branch could be tightened.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the fallback logic, host variation, cost display, and confirmation requirement. Minor gaps remain around how kind, respondents, and label interact with the non-study path.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by explaining the conditional semantics of audience_ids and question (only for a user-requested study, where the card shows cost) versus the default behavior of uploading for later assistant use, which meaningfully exceeds the schema's terse field notes.

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 and resource ('Show a manual upload card') and immediately scopes it as a fallback that only applies when automatic attachment transfer is unavailable. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like request_upload and upload_asset without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the preferred alternatives ('host-provided image_files, or request_upload plus a readable local attachment') and the exact conditions for falling back: neither route available, an upload failed, or the user asks to choose manually. It even states what to do in hosts without card support (offer manual_upload_url) and that the reason should be explained.

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

All iMario tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?