Get a short-lived upload URL for the customer's document. PUT the bytes to it. File type and size limits are the same as the website.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| job_handle | Yes | ||
| content_type | No |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the URL is short-lived, requires PUT, and is subject to website file limits—useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens when limits are violated.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the PUT instruction earns its place as a necessary behavioral detail. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.
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?
The core action is clear, but an agent cannot confidently call this tool without understanding job_handle and content_type semantics. There is no output schema or annotation to fill the gap, so the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. The file-limit note is helpful but insufficient.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'job_handle' is never mentioned, and 'filename' and 'content_type' receive no semantic guidance. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the action ('Get a short-lived upload URL') and the resource ('customer's document'), and adds the concrete instruction to PUT bytes to it. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are payment/checkout/job operations.
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 when to use it (before uploading a customer document) and gives a constraint (file type/size limits same as website), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since none of the siblings overlap functionally, this is a moderate gap rather than a serious one.
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 resource and action, such as create_job vs update_job or complete_payment vs create_checkout. However, hip_quote and hip_prepare_payment both return pricing information and could be confused at first glance; the descriptions do clarify their different purposes, but an explicit warning is needed to keep them apart.
All tools follow the same hip_ prefix with verb_noun snake_case naming, such as hip_create_job, hip_get_order, and hip_complete_payment. This makes the toolset predictable and easy to navigate.
Ten tools is well-scoped for a print-and-mail service. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow—job creation, document upload, quoting, payment, and order tracking—without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
The core lifecycle is well covered: create and update a job, upload documents, quote, pay via autonomous or checkout flows, check payment status, and retrieve order tracking. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit cancel/delete job or a pre-payment job status retrieval tool, but agents can likely work around these.