Create a short-lived, one-time private artifact upload URL. The caller must stream the exact declared bytes with a SHA-256 checksum.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purpose | Yes | ||
| media_type | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| size_bytes | Yes | ||
| artifact_type | Yes | ||
| checksum_sha256 | Yes | ||
| original_filename | Yes | ||
| data_classification | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| upload | No | ||
| artifact | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behavioral traits: the URL is short-lived, one-time, private, and requires streaming the exact declared bytes with a SHA-256 checksum. These details go beyond the annotations, which are all false and offer no safety hints, adding meaningful context about constraints and expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences: one stating the core purpose and one adding a critical usage constraint. Each sentence earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the action, making it efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 8 required parameters and an output schema, but the description lacks workflow context, parameter semantics, and guidance on how this fits into the artifact upload process. It covers the essential creation and the streaming requirement but leaves out explanations for the remaining parameters and the broader use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description is expected to explain the 8 parameters. It only clarifies that the declared size and SHA-256 checksum are used for stream verification, leaving project_id, media_type, artifact_type, purpose, and data_classification unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate all fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a short-lived, one-time private artifact upload URL, which is a specific action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like attach_artifact_reference or create_catalog_import by focusing on the upload URL generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when an artifact needs to be uploaded via a one-time URL, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource, role, or action. For example, list_orders versus list_supplier_orders clearly separates buyer and supplier views, and update_supplier_order versus update_supplier_order_issue versus update_supplier_order_return handle different concerns despite similar names. Rich descriptions eliminate ambiguity.
All tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, list_orders, update_supplier_capabilities, search_products). The style is uniform across reads, writes, lists, and searches, making the API predictable.
With 55 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. Even for a broad supply chain platform, 50+ tools hits the rubric's 'extreme mismatch' threshold. The domain is comprehensive, but the sheer number overwhelms and likely complicates agent tool selection.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from project creation, BOM management, sourcing, quoting, planning, checkout handoff, orders, returns, issues, warranties, catalog updates, supplier profiles, and validation. It handles buyer and supplier sides with appropriate state transitions, and includes meta tools for connection and schema guidance. No obvious critical gaps exist.