create_upload_linkA one-off link (valid 15 minutes) for uploading a map JSON file of up to 40 MB with curl. It creates a new draft map, or with mode replace overwrites an existing map's content. The curl output reports the result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | create (default): a new map. replace: overwrite mapId's content | |
| mapId | No | Required for mode replace |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description explicitly says the tool creates a new draft map or overwrites an existing map's content. That is a direct contradiction of the read-only annotation, so behavioral transparency scores 1 despite the useful link-validity and size details.
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 front-loaded with the key resource and constraints and uses only three sentences. The final sentence about curl output is slightly vague, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to scan.
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?
For a two-parameter tool, the description covers important constraints like link lifetime, file size, curl usage, and the two modes. However, with no output schema it only vaguely says the curl output reports the result, and it does not clarify permissions or the returned link format.
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 100%, and the enum already documents create versus replace. The description adds only a brief restatement of mode replace overwriting existing content, so the schema is doing the primary work.
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 specific resource: a one-off upload link for a map JSON file, with validity and size constraints. It distinguishes the operation from sibling map tools by framing it as an upload link rather than direct map creation, though it does not explicitly name the nearby alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied through the curl upload scenario and the mode replace behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus create_map or replace_map_content. It also does not state when not to use this tool or what the prerequisites are.
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.