Skip to main content
Glama

qencode

by com.qencode

get_download_url

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return a time-limited download URL for an existing object.

Args:
    bucket: bucket name. An unknown bucket fails with `bucket_not_found`.
    key: full object key (e.g. `out/result.mp4`).
    expires: presigned-URL lifetime in seconds, clamped to [300, 600].
        Values outside the range are silently clamped, not rejected.

Returns `{url, method: "GET", expires_at}`. The `url` is always a presigned
GET URL that stops working at `expires_at` (a timestamp within the clamped
[300, 600] s window) — this holds for every bucket, regardless of its
`public` flag. It is not a permanent link; if the user needs a lasting URL,
re-issue this call when it expires. Hand `url` to the user verbatim — it
carries the signature; do not edit it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes
bucketYes
expiresNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
methodYes
expires_atNo

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the expires parameter is silently clamped to [300, 600] seconds, that unknown buckets fail with 'bucket_not_found,' and that the URL is always a presigned GET URL that stops working at expires_at even for public buckets. It also warns the user not to edit the signed URL, which is crucial operational guidance.

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?

The description is well-structured into an Args list and a Returns explanation. Every sentence contributes essential information, such as clamping, public flag behavior, the signature caveat, and the re-issue strategy. It is thorough without being padded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers the return shape, failure modes, edge cases (clamping, public buckets), and usage advice. Combined with the annotations, it provides a complete picture for a tool with 3 parameters, making it self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the Arg block carries the full burden and does so excellently: bucket is defined with a failure mode, key is shown with an example ('out/result.mp4'), and expires is explained with clamping behavior and a default. This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema fields.

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 first sentence, 'Return a time-limited download URL for an existing object,' uses a specific verb and resource while adding the critical qualifier 'time-limited.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_objects and fetch_job_result, which serve different purposes.

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?

The description provides clear context: it is for obtaining a presigned URL that expires, and advises re-issuing the call when a lasting URL is needed. It also notes the URL works regardless of the bucket's public flag, which helps decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for downloading/copying objects, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use comparison.

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

All qencode toolsInspect
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct (list_buckets vs list_objects, search vs fetch docs). Minor overlap exists between transcode_video and start_encode2_raw (both submit jobs) and between get_job_status and get_job_status_detailed, but the descriptions explicitly state when to use which, making misselection unlikely.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names overwhelmingly follow verb_noun (create_bucket, list_buckets, get_download_url, transcode_video). A few deviations like start_encode2_raw, wait_for_job, and download_url_to_bucket break the pure pattern, but the convention is still easily predictable.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is well-scoped for a video encoding platform: bucket management, transcoding submission/status/wait, result retrieval, and docs search/read. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main lifecycle: create bucket, ingest via copy, transcode (two entry points), poll status, fetch result, and generate download URLs. Missing cancel/delete operations for jobs and buckets are notable but not critical for core workflows, and the docs tools help fill knowledge gaps.

Resources