Skip to main content
Glama

Close a link to add files

revoke_upload_link
Idempotent

Close an upload link made with create_upload_link, when the person asks or the link went to the wrong person. It takes no more files, and uploads still running through it stop. Files that finished stay in the project. Takes linkId, from create_upload_link's answer.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "linkId": "<linkId>"
    },
    "name": "revoke_upload_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linkIdYesThe link's id: linkId in create_upload_link's answer. It is not the link itself.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the crucial nuance that in-flight uploads are stopped while already-finished files remain in the project. That resolves the ambiguity of a 'non-destructive' close and tells the agent exactly what state changes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its trigger, then the side effects, then the parameter. No filler or 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?

For a one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the effect on running and completed uploads, and the parameter's origin. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a disambiguation ('from create_upload_link's answer', 'not the link itself') that guards against passing a URL instead of an id. It is slightly redundant with the schema text but still reinforces the correct value source.

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 ('Close an upload link') and ties it to the sibling that creates it ('made with create_upload_link'), so an agent can distinguish it from create_upload_link and other link-related tools without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete triggering conditions ('when the person asks or the link went to the wrong person') and implicitly names the counterpart tool. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a full alternative comparison, but the context is clear enough to act on.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.