stagenth · file-relay

upload_file

上传一个文件（base64 形式）到用户的文件中转站。

    仅在用户明确要求把某个文件存入中转站 / 传输到其他设备 / 分享给他人时调用。
    上传会占用用户的付费存储配额并按传输量扣 credit —— 不要主动上传
    中间结果、日志、临时文件或用户没有要求保存的命令输出。

    用 init + 单次分片 + complete 的方式复用现有服务。
    适合中小文件（< 20MB）。超大文件请使用 Web 端分片上传。

    新增 folder_path: 上传到指定文件夹, 默认根目录 "/"。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filename`	Yes	文件名（含扩展名）
`mime_type`	No
`folder_path`	No	目标文件夹路径。'/' = 根目录 (默认); '/工作/2026' = 嵌套路径。auto_create_folders=True 时路径不存在会 mkdir -p; auto_create_folders=False 时不存在抛错。	/
`content_base64`	Yes	文件内容的 base64 编码。较大文件建议分多次调用前先咨询管理员。
`auto_create_folders`	No	路径不存在时是否自动 mkdir -p, 默认 True (类似 Linux mkdir -p)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important side effects: upload consumes paid storage quota and deducts credit. It also reveals the underlying init/chunk/complete mechanism and the 20MB limit. It doesn't cover return value or overwrite behavior, but core behavioral context is well covered.

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 well-structured with bullet points and front-loads the primary action. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though the final '新增 folder_path:' reads like a changelog artifact rather than polished documentation, slightly reducing clarity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers essential context: when to call, cost implications, size limits, and integration with chunking flows. It omits explicit return-value details and MIME type handling, but for a file upload tool with rich sibling context, this is reasonably complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the 20MB suitability constraint and reaffirming folder_path's default of '/', which complements the schema. It doesn't add detail for mime_type, but the overall parameter context is adequate.

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 states the tool's function: uploading a base64-encoded file to the user's transfer station. It also distinguishes itself from sibling chunking tools by explaining it wraps init + single chunk + complete, and defers large files to web-based chunked upload.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: only call when the user explicitly requests storage/transfer/sharing, and avoid uploading intermediate results, logs, or temp files. It also adds size-based guidance (<20MB vs web upload), making alternatives clear.

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?