nittim

Preview an Upload Before Any Source Leaves the Machine

preview_upload

NEEDS A KEY: mint one at https://nittim.com/keys. Send the PATHS AND SIZES of the files you would post — no content, nothing is uploaded to ask this — and get back the list, the byte count, and a link for the account owner to approve it. Posting more than a small selection of files needs this approval first; the approval's id (uploadGrant) and the identical file set are then accepted by the real call. Nothing is charged, here or by approving.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	A display label for this project, e.g. 'my-abacus-app'. Sanitized before use — no path/URL characters needed.
`files`	Yes	Paths and sizes only — the same set you would post. Never file content.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behavioral specifics beyond the sparse annotations: no content is uploaded, nothing is charged, a key is required, and the approval id plus identical file set are consumed by the real call. These are crucial non-obvious side-effect and workflow facts.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four dense sentences, each carrying essential operational information: key requirement, input shape, return value, approval necessity, and cost. Attention is front-loaded with 'NEEDS A KEY' followed by what is sent and received.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, workflow, returned artifacts, and cost implications. It leaves some ambiguity about the exact 'real call' tool name and error handling, but the core invocation context is adequately explained.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents name sanitization and file path/bytes semantics. The description reinforces 'no content' and 'identical file set' but adds little parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a clear preview/approval workflow: send only paths and sizes, get back a byte count and an approval link for the account owner. It is distinct from the sibling audit/scan tools and from the 'real call' it defers to.

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?

It explicitly says when this step is required: 'Posting more than a small selection of files needs this approval first.' It also ties the returned uploadGrant to the later real call. However, it never names the sibling or alternative upload tool, and 'small selection' is left undefined.

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

All nittim tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map to distinct workflow stages: estimate, preview, submit audit, retrieve audit, run module, dispute finding, and judge output. The closest pairs are audit_repo vs audit_source and scan_source vs run_module, but the descriptions provide enough boundary detail for an agent to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows the same snake_case verb_noun pattern: audit_repo, audit_source, estimate_audit, get_audit, list_modules, run_module, scan_source, and so on. There is no mixing of naming conventions or vague standalone verbs.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well-scoped for a paid AI audit service with async delivery, approval flows, and both repo-based and source-based inputs. Each tool covers a distinct step in the audit pipeline without feeling redundant or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered: estimate cost, submit audits, run single modules, check status, retrieve results, and dispute findings. Minor gaps include no way to list past audits, cancel a pending audit, or manage credits directly, though estimate_audit does show the balance.

Resources

Need Help?