upload_editor_mediaUpload an image, video, or audio file directly into your real Switch Editor project. First call with presign=true, PUT the bytes to upload_url, then confirm_path in a second call; no browser file picker is needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| mime | No | ||
| presign | No | ||
| filename | No | ||
| file_size | No | Bytes; required for presign. | |
| project_id | Yes | ||
| confirm_path | No | ||
| duration_seconds | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing the multi-step presign/upload/confirm workflow and noting that no browser file picker is needed, which goes beyond the annotation data.
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 core purpose and followed by the essential workflow. No filler or repetition; every clause adds useful information.
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 an 8-parameter, two-phase mutation with no output schema, the description captures the high-level flow but omits important details like what the presign response contains, exactly which parameters are needed for each call, and how confirm_path is obtained or used. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for presign and confirm_path and introduces upload_url as part of the workflow, but mime, filename, duration_seconds, and per-call parameter requirements remain underspecified.
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 a specific action: uploading image/video/audio media into a real Switch Editor project. It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like upload_media by emphasizing the direct editor-project context and the no-browser-picker workflow.
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 explicit procedural guidance: first call with presign=true, PUT bytes to upload_url, then call confirm_path in a second call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the workflow is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools occupy nearly identical semantic ground: apply_iphone_realism and apply_ugc both describe casual phone-shot looks, upload_media and upload_reference_asset both accept uploads, and analyze_video overlaps heavily with analyze_video_report. The many apply_* style tools are essentially one tool parameterized by style, so agents can easily select the wrong one.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern such as generate_image, list_my_videos, get_editor_run, and upscale_video. A few outliers like voice, talking_avatar_video, and video_to_prompt do not use the same verb-first convention, but they are still readable and do not create significant confusion.
At 55 tools, the surface is far beyond what is appropriate for an MCP server; many of these be collapsed or parameterized, especially the 10 apply_* style wrappers and several overlapping upload/status helpers. Even for a broad media platform, this scale forces a huge context window and makes selecting the right tool impractical.
The surface covers generation, media display, video analysis, and Editor workflows well, but there are obvious gaps in library lifecycle management: move_asset and create_folder are referenced in tool descriptions without being exposed, and there is no clean way to delete or reorganize media assets. Agents following the descriptions will try to call tools that do not exist.