SPACEXPLORATION

Sign Attachment Upload Tool

sign_attachment_upload

Begin an out-of-band file upload. Returns a presigned R2 PUT URL and the headers to use; the file bytes are uploaded directly to storage, never through this channel. After PUTting the file, call confirm_attachment_upload with the returned attachment_id. Supports listings (photos, documents), users (avatar), and pages (cover, photos).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`size`	Yes	Exact byte size of the file. Verified against the uploaded object at confirm time, so it must be accurate.
`filename`	Yes	Original filename including extension, e.g. "front-elevation.jpg". Used to derive the storage key and extension.
`collection`	No	Optional explicit collection: "photos", "documents", "avatar", "logo", or "cover". Omit to auto-route by MIME (images→photos, docs→documents). Singleton slots (avatar/cover/logo) must be set explicitly.
`content_type`	Yes	MIME type of the file, e.g. "image/jpeg" or "application/pdf". Must match the collection whitelist.
`attachable_id`	Yes	Identifier of the attachable resource. For "listing" pass the listing hashid (e.g. "d5yqqgoa") — the same id every read tool returns. For "user" pass "me" to attach to yourself. For "page" pass its numeric id.
`attachable_type`	Yes	Morph alias of the resource to attach to: "listing", "user", or "page".

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that file bytes never pass through this channel, size is verified at confirm, and collection auto-routes by MIME. Could mention expiration of presigned URL or idempotency, but core behavior is covered.

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?

Three sentences, each essential. First sentence states the action, second explains the follow-up, third lists supported types. No filler, front-loaded with key result.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Describes the two-step flow and return of presigned URL/headers, but lacks details about the response structure (e.g., the attachment_id field hinted at), error conditions, size limits, or URL expiration. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% but description adds significant value: examples for attachable_id (hashid, 'me', numeric id), explains collection auto-route logic, size verification at confirm time, and filename used for storage key. Goes well beyond 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?

Describes the tool as initiating an out-of-band file upload, returning a presigned URL and headers. Clearly distinguishes from confirm_attachment_upload and lists supported attachable types (listings, users, pages).

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?

States the two-step process: PUT to the presigned URL then call confirm_attachment_upload. Explains collection auto-routing and explicit setting. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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

All SPACEXPLORATION 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing CRUD, attachment upload workflow, search with interpret, geocoding, saved searches, and registry retrieval. No two tools overlap significantly; even the upload-related tools (sign, confirm, attach) are sequential and distinct.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_listing, get_registry, search_listings). The naming is predictable and clear, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 15 tools, the server covers the core functionalities of a commercial real estate listing system without being bloated. Each tool serves a necessary role, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is missing critical lifecycle operations: there is no way to delete or archive a listing, nor any tool to publish/unpublish a listing. This leaves an obvious gap in the basic CRUD workflow, which will cause agent failures when users need to remove or finalize listings.

Resources

Need Help?