Layerz

Create file upload URL

layerz_create_upload_url

Issues a signed Storage URL for an Excel/CSV file and returns file_id, signed_url, upload_expires_at, expires_at. signed_url accepts one HTTP PUT of the file body with the declared content type within 2 h of issue (upload_expires_at): create the URL right before the PUT (a shell curl -X PUT --data-binary @file; the binary stays out of the conversation); after that a new call issues a fresh URL and file_id. The uploaded file_id is the identifier the file-consuming tools take, readable for 24 h (expires_at). Limits: 25 MB, MIME whitelist (xlsx, xls, csv, json, txt). Mints no model data, so it stays available to read-only keys.

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": {
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "size": "<size>",
      "content_type": "<content_type>"
    },
    "name": "layerz_create_upload_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`size`	Yes	File size in bytes (max 25 MB).
`filename`	Yes	Original filename, e.g. "actuals_q1.csv".
`content_type`	Yes	MIME type, e.g. "text/csv" or the xlsx content type.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / content_type / description

Previous value: -"MIME type, e.g. \"text/csv\" or the xlsx spreadsheet content type."New value: +"MIME type, e.g. \"text/csv\" or the xlsx content type."

First observedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description goes well beyond that: single-use signed URL, 2 h upload window vs 24 h readability, 25 MB cap, MIME whitelist, and the notable auth fact that it mints no model data so read-only keys can call it. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the action and return fields, then layers timing, limits, and auth in a tight paragraph with no filler. The shell curl example is slightly more implementation detail than an agent strictly needs, but it usefully explains that the binary stays out of the conversation.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates all four returned fields and their lifetimes, and covers limits, auth scope, and the re-issue path. An agent can call this correctly and know what to do with the result without any other source.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: content_type must be declared and match the PUT, and only xlsx/xls/csv/json/txt are accepted, which constrains a field the schema leaves open with just an example. The size cap is a repeat of the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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: 'Issues a signed Storage URL for an Excel/CSV file', plus the exact return fields. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as layerz_parse_file or layerz_export, which consume rather than mint upload targets.

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 operational guidance: create the URL right before the PUT, one PUT only within 2 h, and re-issue a fresh URL plus file_id after expiry. It also implies downstream routing by noting file_id is what 'file-consuming tools' take, though it never names a specific sibling to hand off to, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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

All Layerz tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?