private_space_file_putStore an opaque file of up to 4 MiB in an authorized private Space using canonical base64 and a stable idempotency key. Arbitrary formats are retained without parsing or executing them. The Space owner pays operation and retained document-byte storage usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sha256 | No | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| space_id | Yes | ||
| media_type | No | ||
| data_base64 | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations, the description discloses key traits: a 4 MiB size limit, opaque handling without parsing or execution, idempotency-key stability, and billing responsibility. It does not describe overwrite/conflict behavior or failure modes, but the annotation coverage is already strong.
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?
Three compact sentences front-load the core operation and then add limits, encoding, format handling, and billing. Every sentence adds value without repetition.
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?
Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers the important behavioral context an agent needs before calling: size limit, base64 requirement, idempotency, opaque handling, and billing. It is not fully complete on parameter details or overwrite/conflict semantics, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and six parameters, the description compensates partially by explaining base64 canonical encoding, idempotency-key behavior, and the file-size limit. It leaves filename, media_type, sha256, and the space_id pattern unexplained beyond schema structure.
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 states a clear verb and resource: store an opaque file in a private Space. It implies the difference from get/list/delete/copy siblings through 'Store', but does not explicitly name or contrast with file_copy or other alternatives.
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 useful context for use (authorized private Space, canonical base64, stable idempotency key), but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over private_space_file_copy or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than guided.
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.