ClientFoyer MCP

uploadFile

Upload a file to a project

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "fileName": "<fileName>",
      "base64Data": "<base64Data>"
    },
    "name": "uploadFile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fileName`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes
`base64Data`	Yes
`contentType`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about size limits, whether an existing file with the same name is overwritten, required encoding, or permission/authentication needs. Only the minimal fact that this is a write into a project is conveyed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and waste-free, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out nearly everything an agent needs: encoding format, overwrite behavior, response shape, and failure modes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so all four parameters (fileName, projectId, base64Data, contentType) are undocumented in the schema and the description adds nothing. It only loosely implies a file and a project exist; the base64 encoding contract and the optional contentType default are left entirely unexplained.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Upload a file to a project"), which is more informative than the bare tool name. However, it gives no detail about what uploading entails and does not distinguish the tool from any sibling beyond the obvious name contrast with listFiles.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites (project must exist, permissions required), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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

All ClientFoyer MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?