upload_ai_pack_imageUpload one explicit local JPEG, PNG, WebP, or AVIF image to the seller-owned pack listing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| imagePath | Yes | ||
| productId | Yes | Tetrees AI Pack product id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no extra safety notes. The description adds useful constraints—one image only, JPEG/PNG/WebP/AVIF, local path, seller-owned—but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting an existing preview or any upload limits.
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?
Single sentence with no filler, front-loads the action and formats. Every clause earns its place.
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 a two-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential call information: formats, local path nature, single image, and target ownership. Minor gaps remain around response/error behavior and whether the preview replaces an existing image, but these are not blocking.
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 coverage is only 50%; imagePath has no description in the schema, and the description partially compensates by specifying 'local' and allowed formats. productId's meaning is largely left to the schema description, and the description does not explicitly connect it to the target listing.
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?
States a specific verb ('Upload'), a single local image in four allowed formats, and the destination ('seller-owned pack listing'). The title further disambiguates this as the preview-image tool distinct from the general upload_ai_pack sibling.
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 implies the tool is for uploading an image to one's own pack listing and restricts to local image files, so an agent can infer when it might apply. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with upload_ai_pack or explains when not to use this tool.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct by action and resource, though several clusters (accept/propose/select/list growth, prepare/execute/run) require careful reading of descriptions to avoid confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, with clear action prefixes and descriptive resource nouns.
With 26 tools, the set exceeds the recommended range and feels heavy, even though the domain covers publishing, runtime, growth, and reporting workflows.
The toolkit covers the main AI pack lifecycle—authoring, publishing, acquisition, running, searching, and reporting—but lacks explicit delete/revoke operations for drafts or entitlements.