Upload a file to a timeline entry (Base64-encoded content)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Base64-encoded file content | |
| entryId | Yes | Entry ID | |
| fileName | Yes | File name with extension, e.g. "report.pdf" | |
| mimeType | No | MIME type, e.g. "application/pdf" | |
| projectId | Yes | Project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that content must be Base64-encoded, but it does not state what happens on upload (e.g., whether it overwrites an existing file, whether it returns a file ID, or what errors may occur). The mutation implications of 'upload' are minimally implied but not explicitly disclosed.
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 is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or redundant elaboration and earns its place efficiently.
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 description covers the core operation and key input requirement (Base64 content), but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out return value details, file overwrite behavior, and any size or type constraints. It is minimally viable for a simple upload tool but has gaps for fully informed invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the Base64 requirement, which adds no new meaning beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the intended purpose of the 'content' parameter. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.
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 a specific action, 'Upload a file to a timeline entry', with a required encoding detail (Base64). This distinguishes it from sibling file tools like read_file, delete_file, and list_files, which are read/list/delete operations while this one is an upload operation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the timeline entry needing to exist. The description does not explicitly exclude other file operations or direct the agent to alternative tools in different scenarios.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources (elements, knowledge, tasks, datasets, snapshots), but a few pairs blur boundaries: create_project/init_project both create projects, and pin_knowledge/set_knowledge_relevance both mark importance for future agents. The descriptions help separate them, but misselection is possible without careful reading.
Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun and have solid list_/get_/search_ conventions. However creation verbs are inconsistent (add_element vs create_entry vs save_dataset vs init_project), and deletion mixes delete_entry/delete_file with remove_element, making the naming pattern less predictable than it could be.
48 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range, and the set includes many lifecycle variants (create/init/save/add, delete/remove, update/set) that inflate the count. While the server covers a broad domain, the sheer number makes it heavy and harder for an agent to navigate.
The core surfaces (projects, elements, knowledge, timeline, tasks, chats, datasets, snapshots, files) have solid create/read/update coverage, with search and session-handoff tools. Notable gaps exist: read_file references a download path for binary files that no tool provides, and there is no get_entry or delete/archive for projects, datasets, snapshots, or chat sessions.