Yuppsy

property_insert_single_image

Add a single image to an existing property. This will NOT clear existing images. If successful, it returns a success response along with the image id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "property_insert_single_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	The property image item data.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / data / description
```
Added value: +"The property image item data."
```
Changed4 schema fields changedNov 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / data / properties / externalId / description
```
Added value: +"Property external id, if any."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / data / properties / imageUriL / description
```
Added value: +"The external url of the image."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / data / properties / imageUriS / description
```
Added value: +"The external url of the image. Can be ignored. When not set, ImageUriL will be used."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / data / properties / propertyId / description
```
Added value: +"The id of the property. Can be ignored if ExternalId is provided."
```
First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key non-destructive trait (existing images are preserved) and sketches the return ('success response along with the image id'), which matters since there is no output schema. It omits permissions/auth needs, duplicate-image behavior, and what happens when the property or image URL is invalid.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the caveats. The success clause is slightly redundant in phrasing ('If successful, it returns a success response') but still earns its place for an output-schema-less tool.

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?

For a single-parameter nested-object tool with rich schema descriptions and no annotations, the definition covers action, non-destructive semantics, and return shape. The remaining gap is routing against the close sibling property_add_images, which the description never addresses.

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%, with each nested field (imageUriL, imageUriS, externalId, propertyId) documented in the schema itself, including the fallback rule for imageUriS. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a single image to an existing property'), and the word 'single' implicitly separates it from the sibling property_add_images bulk variant. It does not name that sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 note 'This will NOT clear existing images' implies the intended use case (incremental append) and hints at a contrasting replace-style behavior, but the description never says when to prefer property_add_images or property_insert_single_video instead. No prerequisites (e.g. property must already exist) are stated.

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

All Yuppsy tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?