Skip to main content
Glama

Zernio

by com.zernio

Generate an upload URL for media files

media_generate_upload_link
Destructive

Generate a unique upload URL for the user to upload files via browser.

Use this when the user wants to include images or videos in their post. The flow is:

  1. Call this tool to get an upload URL

  2. Ask the user to open the URL in their browser

  3. User uploads files through the web interface

  4. Call media_check_upload_status to get the uploaded file URLs

  5. Use those URLs when creating the post with posts_create

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool does not upload files itself, the user must open the browser URL, and a subsequent status-check call is needed to get the real uploaded file URLs. It does not expand on what the destructiveHint annotation might be protecting against, but it at least provides a full interactive flow.

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 efficient: a single defining sentence followed by a compact numbered flow. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important purpose ('generate an upload URL') is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the trigger condition, the full upload workflow, the next tool to call, and how the finished URLs fit into post creation. Nothing important for executing the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema is empty, so with zero parameters there is almost no semantic burden on the description. The description correctly avoids claiming any inputs, and the schema itself already provides unambiguous parameter information.

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 action: generate a unique upload URL for media files. It also gives the exact purpose—letting a user upload files via browser before creating a post—so an agent can distinguish this tool from related media and publishing tools.

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 says 'Use this when the user wants to include images or videos in their post' and provides a numbered flow that explains when to call the tool and what the next steps are. No alternatives are needed here because the workflow is explicit and the progression to media_check_upload_status and posts_create is described.

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

All Zernio toolsInspect
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

C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly separated by domain prefix, but several overlap: posts_publish_now duplicates posts_create's publish_now mode, posts_edit_post vs posts_update is confusing without reading both descriptions, and analytics_get_analytics broadly overlaps the more specific analytics metrics tools. The descriptions do help disambiguate, but the large number of similar post/analytics helpers still creates selection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable lower_snake resource_verb format, with domains like accounts_, posts_, profiles_, and queue_. However, there is notable drift: redundant suffixes (queue_create_queue_slot, tracking_tags_get_tracking_tag_stats), singular/plural mismatch (account_groups_ vs accounts_), non-prefixed helpers (call_tool, search_tools, docs_search), and paired verbs that seem arbitrary (posts_edit_post vs posts_update). It is readable but not cleanly consistent.

Tool Count2/5

51 tools is far above the range where an agent can quickly select the right one, and many entries are wrappers or variants: publish_now, edit_post, retry_all_failed, and multiple analytics/queue helpers could be consolidated. The broad domain justifies more tools than a tiny server, but this count is excessive and will add navigation overhead.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core social media management lifecycle well: profiles, accounts, posts, scheduling, queueing, analytics, comments, mentions, media uploads, tracking tags, and usage billing are all represented. There are minor gaps—tracking tags are read-only, there is no direct account connection/disconnection flow, and published-post deletion is unsupported—but agents can complete the main workflows with these tools.

Resources