NexDoc Design

Request file upload

request_file_upload

Mint a presigned upload URL for a photo/logo/PDF. Preferred for anything larger than a small icon — do not base64 the file into asset_files and do not compress or generate a replacement. Pass content_sha256 (hex) when known to reuse an existing upload for this user. After this returns, if already_uploaded is true skip PUT and use file_id; otherwise PUT the ORIGINAL file bytes to upload_url (same Content-Type), then check_file until status is ready, then pass file_ids to create_design or update_design.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filename`	Yes	Original filename, e.g. headshot.jpg
`size_bytes`	Yes	Exact byte size of the file that will be PUT
`content_type`	Yes	MIME type matching the file, e.g. image/jpeg, image/png, application/pdf
`content_sha256`	No	Optional hex SHA-256 of the file bytes. When the same user already uploaded identical content, returns that file_id with already_uploaded=true (skip PUT).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uri`	No
`file_id`	Yes
`next_step`	No
`expires_at`	No
`upload_url`	Yes
`already_uploaded`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / content_sha256

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional hex SHA-256 of the file bytes. When the same user already uploaded identical content, returns that file_id with already_uploaded=true (skip PUT).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / already_uploaded
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), the description discloses the conditional reuse behavior (already_uploaded skips PUT), the requirement to PUT original bytes with the same Content-Type, and the need to poll check_file before proceeding. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful workflow context, though it omits error handling or auth-specific details.

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?

The description is three sentences: purpose, preference/alternative, and workflow. Every clause carries necessary information and the main action is front-loaded. It is dense but not padded, slightly long due to the complex workflow, but well structured.

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 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: when to call, what to pass, how to handle the response (already_uploaded vs PUT), and integration with sibling tools (check_file, create_design, update_design). It leaves little ambiguity, though it could mention error cases or prerequisites like authentication.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented (e.g., content_sha256's deduplication role is fully explained in the schema). The description adds workflow context (e.g., size_bytes must match the PUT, content_sha256 is optional) but mostly reinforces schema text, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Mint a presigned upload URL') and scopes it to photo/logo/PDF. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling upload_file and warns against base64-ing into asset_files, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

It states a clear preference rule ('Preferred for anything larger than a small icon — do not base64 the file into asset_files and do not compress or generate a replacement') and provides a step-by-step after-action workflow: skip PUT if already_uploaded, otherwise PUT original bytes with the same Content-Type, poll check_file until ready, then pass file_ids to create_design or update_design. This is explicit when/how and names the alternatives.

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

All NexDoc Design 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?