switch

Upload Media

upload_media

Upload one image into your Switch library in a single call. Pass url (any public https) OR base64 + mime. Switch fetches/decodes it server-side, stores it, and returns a clean public URL plus the new asset id. This is THE way to use a photo the user attached in chat as a reference: pass the returned url directly into generate_image's reference_image_urls, OR into generate_video's image_url (image-to-video) or reference_image_urls (reference / omni video). The returned URL is provider-fetchable as-is — no presigned PUT, no curl, no confirm-upload step. Do NOT call get_my_active_references for a chat-attached photo; that strip only holds Studio-managed refs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Any public https URL — Switch fetches it server-side.
`mime`	No	MIME type when sending base64. Default image/png.
`base64`	No	Base64-encoded image bytes (use this when there is no public URL).

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that Switch fetches/decodes the image server-side, stores it, and returns a clean public URL plus new asset id. It clarifies the returned URL is provider-fetchable as-is, with 'no presigned PUT, no curl, no confirm-upload step,' adding value beyond the annotations' readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 every sentence serves a purpose, front-loading the main action, then parameter options, then usage guidance and exclusions. No wasted words or redundant schema repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states the return includes a clean public URL and asset id. It provides downstream integration details for generate_image and generate_video, and warns against using get_my_active_references, making it a complete self-contained guide.

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 covers all three parameters, and the description adds the critical relationship that `url` OR `base64` + `mime` are alternative input modes. It also specifies that `mime` is used for base64, complementing the schema with usage constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Upload one image into your Switch library in a single call' with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool `upload_reference_asset`, but the rest of the description clarifies the unique use case for chat-attached photos.

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 states when to use this tool: 'This is THE way to use a photo the user attached in chat as a reference' and gives exact destination parameters for generate_image and generate_video. It also provides an exclusion: 'Do NOT call get_my_active_references for a chat-attached photo.'

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

All switch 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

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?