stagenth · file-relay

upload_init

发起分片上传会话 (第 1 步 / 共 3 步)。

    返回:
      - instant=true 时, file 字段是已秒传的文件元数据, 直接用即可
      - instant=false 时, 用 session_uuid + 服务端给的 chunk_size/total_chunks
        逐片调 upload_chunk, 最后调 upload_complete。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sha256`	Yes	整个文件的 sha256 (64 位小写十六进制); 服务端用这个做秒传命中
`filename`	Yes	文件名（含扩展名）
`mime_type`	No
`folder_path`	No	目标文件夹路径, 默认 '/' 即根目录。auto_create_folders=True 时会按 mkdir -p 语义自动建。	/
`total_size_bytes`	Yes	整个文件的字节数
`auto_create_folders`	No	路径不存在时是否自动 mkdir -p

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly explains the two return modes (instant vs. non-instant) and the necessary next calls, providing useful lifecycle context beyond a simple tool description.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Bullet points for return modes make the structure clear without any waste.

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?

The description covers the essential return values and the multi-step flow, which is crucial since there is no output schema. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or prerequisites, but for a step-initialization tool, the provided context is sufficient for correct usage.

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 83%, so parameters are already well-documented. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 initiates a chunked upload session and is step 1 of 3. This specific verb+resource distinction separates it from siblings like upload_chunk and upload_complete.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage as the first step in a chunked upload flow and explains the subsequent steps, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like upload_file or state when chunked upload is preferred.

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?