RooQuiz

prepare_image_upload

Read-only

Step 1 of 2 for adding an image (PNG / JPEG / GIF / WebP) to the current team media library. This tool does NOT receive image bytes — it returns a short-lived presigned URL you upload the file to directly, so even large images never pass through this conversation. Workflow: (1) save the image to a local temp file; (2) if the file is larger than 5MB, compress / downscale it to 5MB or less FIRST (e.g. sips -Z 2048 in.png --out out.jpg on macOS, or magick in.png -resize "2048x2048>" -quality 82 out.webp) — uploads over 5MB are rejected; (3) call this tool with filename, mimeType and (optionally) fileSize; (4) HTTP PUT the temp file to the returned uploadUrl with the matching Content-Type header, e.g. curl -X PUT --upload-file <file> "<uploadUrl>" -H "Content-Type: image/png"; (5) call finalize_image_upload with the returned key; (6) delete the temp file. Max 5MB after compression. Only image/png, image/jpeg, image/gif and image/webp are accepted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fileSize`	No	Optional file size in bytes (of the file you will actually upload, after any compression). If provided it is checked against the 5MB cap and the team storage quota up front; the authoritative check still runs in finalize_image_upload against the actual uploaded size.
`filename`	Yes	Original filename for admin display / download, e.g. "cover.png".
`mimeType`	Yes	Image MIME type. Must be one of image/png, image/jpeg, image/gif, image/webp.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	No	Staging object key to pass to finalize_image_upload
`expiresIn`	No	Seconds until the presigned URL expires
`uploadUrl`	No	Presigned PUT URL — upload the bytes here, then call finalize_image_upload
`requiredContentType`	No	Content-Type header the PUT must send, or R2 rejects it

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint by clarifying that the tool itself does not upload or receive image bytes, and by documenting the 5MB limit, the temporary-file lifecycle, the HTTP PUT step with Content-Type, and the required finalize step. This fully discloses the tool's role in a multi-step flow and warns about the practical upload requirement.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long and dense, but the length is justified by the two-phase upload flow, the size-limit constraint, and the need for executable examples. It is front-loaded with the key mental model ('this tool does NOT receive image bytes') before giving the step-by-step workflow. It could be tightened slightly, but every included sentence serves a functional role.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover the read-only/destructive hints, the description provides everything an agent needs to call this tool and continue the workflow. It covers prerequisites, the 5MB cap, accepted MIME types, the separation between this tool and finalize_image_upload, and even concrete curl/sips snippets for execution. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Although the schema already documents all three parameters, the description adds meaningful context: fileSize is described as the size after compression and as the target of an up-front quota check, with the authoritative check deferred to finalize_image_upload. The description also ties filename, mimeType, and fileSize to the actual upload flow, which enriches the schema's literal definitions.

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 clearly identifies the tool as 'Step 1 of 2 for adding an image' to the team media library and explains that it produces a presigned upload URL rather than receiving image bytes. This distinguishes it sharply from the sibling finalize_image_upload and gives the agent an accurate mental model of the operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a numbered 6-step workflow covering when to call this tool, what to do before calling it (compress files over 5MB), and what to do afterward (PUT to the returned URL, then call finalize_image_upload). It also explicitly states the accepted MIME types and the rejection condition for oversized uploads, so the agent can decide correctly when to invoke the tool.

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

All RooQuiz 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools pair a distinct resource with a distinct verb, and the descriptions do a good job of separating related concepts like leads, records, examinees, and bookings. The only real ambiguity is between list_records (submission records, also called leads) and list_leads (CRM leads), plus a mild overlap between update_form and update_form_settings, but careful reading resolves both.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, using standard verbs like get_, list_, create_, update_, delete_, add_, insert_, move_, and set_. Minor stylistic variation such as add_question vs. insert_question is still predictable and does not hurt usability.

Tool Count2/5

48 tools is a very heavy surface for an MCP server. While each tool appears purposeful, the server spans forms, questions, translations, analytics, leads, bookings, examinees, media, and team administration, making it feel like a full platform API rather than a focused server. Most agents will only ever need a subset of these tools.

Completeness4/5

The core quiz lifecycle is well covered: form creation/editing/deletion/restore/duplicate/translation, question CRUD/move, delivery settings, statistics/funnels, lead CRM, bookings, examinees, media upload, and tenant basics. The main gaps are minor — no member list/remove/role management beyond invite, no media library listing/deletion, and no bulk export of records — but these do not create dead ends in the primary quiz/lead/booking workflows.

Resources

Need Help?