upload_fileUpload up to 10 MiB through NotePom without exposing a private storage URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| fileId | No | ||
| folderId | No | ||
| mimeType | Yes | ||
| contentBase64 | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| folderId | Yes | ||
| mimeType | Yes | ||
| sizeBytes | Yes |
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?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the 10 MiB limit and the fact that the upload avoids exposing a private storage URL. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: the action, the size limit, the platform, and the privacy rationale. It is appropriately concise for a tool with structured annotations and schema.
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 tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no parameter-level guidance, the description is too sparse to support correct invocation. It does not explain idempotencyKey, folder placement, fileId reuse, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input side remains under-specified.
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 compensate by explaining any of the 6 parameters. While names like name, mimeType, and contentBase64 are somewhat self-explanatory, optional fileId/folderId and idempotencyKey semantics are left entirely undocumented, making correct invocation harder.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Upload up to 10 MiB through NotePom'. It clearly states what the tool does and adds a meaningful constraint (size limit) plus a privacy motivation. The 'upload' action distinguishes it from read/trash/move siblings without confusion.
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 gives clear context about when to use this tool: uploading files up to 10 MiB through NotePom when avoiding exposure of a private storage URL matters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is specific enough to guide tool selection.
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 target a distinct resource and action, and lifecycle pairs like publish_note_listing vs publish_media_listing or get_note vs get_collaboration_note are separated by clear wording. A few near-pairs such as move_file vs move_workspace_item and trash_file vs trash_workspace_item could still cause an agent to pick the wrong tool without careful reading.
All 38 tools follow one consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even less common verbs like upsert, trash, purge, and validate are applied uniformly, making the tool set predictable.
38 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and makes the overall surface feel heavy for tool selection. The number is defensible given the broad workspace, collaboration, and marketplace scope, but as a single MCP server it is not especially well-scoped.
The tool set covers workspace content lifecycle, collaboration, public pages, marketplace listings, Stripe seller flow, and agent registration without major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no permanent delete outside of the trash flow and no direct collaboration-note deletion, but core workflows are supported.