stagenth · file-relay

upload_complete

合并所有分片 (第 3 步 / 共 3 步)。

    两种路径:
      - 直传 (推荐, shim 走这条): parts 带齐所有 (part_number, etag),
        后端调 OSS CompleteMultipartUpload 服务端合并, 不耗 ECS 内存/带宽。
      - 中转 (兼容老 shim / 网页端): 不传 parts, 从临时分片合并。

    返回最终 file 元数据 (id, uuid, filename, size_bytes, sha256, ...).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`parts`	No	【OSS 直传模式】每片对应的 (part_number, etag)。如: [{"part_number": 1, "etag": "abc..."}, ...]。shim 在 PUT 每片到 OSS 后从响应头拿到 ETag, 传回来。传了 parts 走 OSS CompleteMultipartUpload 合并 (字节不经 ECS)。不传则走老路: 从 upload_chunk 落地的临时片合并 (中转模式)。
`session_uuid`	Yes	upload_init 返回的会话 UUID

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that direct mode calls OSS CompleteMultipartUpload server-side and avoids ECS memory/bandwidth, while relay mode merges temp chunks. It also lists the returned file metadata fields. Missing details like error handling or prerequisites, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 compact and well organized: a one-line purpose statement followed by two bulleted path options and a return-value note. Every sentence contributes essential information, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two modes, no output schema), the description adequately covers the operation, the two implementation paths, and the return metadata. It omits error scenarios and explicit prerequisites, but the 'step 3 of 3' context plus fully described schema parameters fill most gaps. Overall, sufficient for invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters: 'parts' and 'session_uuid' are fully defined in the input schema, including ETag format and the two modes. The tool description merely echoes this information without adding new semantic nuance, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 opens with '合并所有分片 (第 3 步 / 共 3 步)', which clearly identifies the verb (merge) and resource (all shards) and positions it as the final multipart upload step. It then contrasts the two merging paths (direct vs relay) and states the returned metadata, making it distinct from sibling tools like upload_init and upload_chunk.

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 explicitly explains when to include 'parts' (direct OSS mode) versus omitting them (relay mode), and recommends the direct path for shim. It implies usage after upload_init and upload_chunk via '第 3 步 / 共 3 步', but it does not explicitly list exclusions such as 'for small files use upload_file'.

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

All stagenth · file-relay 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct with clear purposes. Some potential confusion exists between upload_file (a convenience wrapper) and the upload_init/chunk/complete sequence, but descriptions help clarify. The inclusion of scrape_url feels out of place but is also distinct.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_folder, delete_file, download_file). However, 'file_read' breaks the pattern (should be read_file), and 'get_file_info' uses get_ while others use list_. Overall minor inconsistency.

Tool Count4/5

With 25 tools, the count is slightly high but still reasonable for a file management server that includes upload, download, sharing, and folder operations. A few tools (like scrape_url) seem tangential, but overall the scope justifies the count.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most core file and folder operations (create, read, update/move, delete, list, search, upload, download, share, zip). Notable gaps include no rename_file tool and no ability to update file metadata. Still, the set is fairly complete for basic file management.

Resources

Need Help?