Upload base64-encoded media files to the YouCam API and return file_id(s).
If task_type is omitted, files are uploaded via the generic file API (POST /s2s/v2.0/file) rather than a task-specific upload path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | Yes | ||
| task_type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / task_type / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / task_type / typeRemoved value: -"string"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return value and that the upload endpoint changes based on whether task_type is supplied (POST /s2s/v2.0/file), but it omits auth requirements, size/format limits, and failure behavior for an upload operation.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and the conditional task_type detail following. No filler, though the endpoint path detail could be trimmed as implementation leakage.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained. However, for a no-annotation upload tool, the description leaves the 'files' object shape and operational limits (size, encoding constraints, auth) undocumented, which is a meaningful gap.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning by stating files must be base64-encoded and that task_type selects the upload path, but it does not describe the internal structure of the file objects in the 'files' array, leaving that half of the contract unexplained.
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+resource ('Upload base64-encoded media files to the YouCam API') and the return value ('file_id(s)'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'File-Upload' or the many task-specific try-on tools, so sibling differentiation is missing.
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 explains the conditional behavior of task_type (generic vs task-specific upload path) but never says when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'File-Upload' or the per-task try-on tools. No explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisites are given.
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.