Skip to main content
Glama

GenHTTP Lambda

by dev.genhttp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Put a file into the lambda's data

upload_file
DestructiveIdempotent

Write a file to the lambda's workspace - its data, which every version shares and no deploy, rollback or merge touches. With feature, to that feature's copy of the data instead, for trying things out without touching the real one. For files the lambda works with at runtime (pictures people will browse) and large input files that are not program: a model, a dataset, media. Records belong in the database, where the code writes them. Takes effect at once, without a deploy. Not for the front end: pages, scripts and styles are the program and belong in the version's resources (write_code).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesRelative to the workspace; slashes make folders, e.g. 'models/model.onnx'.
contentYesText, or base64 with encoding set.
featureNoWrite to this feature's copy of the data instead.
encodingNo'base64' for binary; omit otherwise.
privateKeyYesThe editor key.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / feature
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Write to this feature's copy of the data instead.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Relative to the workspace; slashes make folders, e.g. 'site/app.css'."New value: +"Relative to the workspace; slashes make folders, e.g. 'models/model.onnx'."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: changes take effect immediately without a deploy, and the data survives deploys, rollbacks and merges. It also clarifies that the feature variant avoids mutating the real copy. It does not state what happens to an existing file at the same path (overwrite vs. version), which is the one gap relative to destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the opening clause, and the remaining sentences each carry routing or behavioral information. The prose is dense and dash-heavy, slightly longer than needed, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, annotations covering safety flags, and full schema coverage for five parameters, the description supplies the missing pieces: persistence semantics, immediacy, and tool selection. Only overwrite behavior and any size limits are left unspecified.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds semantic meaning the schema lacks: it explains the workspace-relative root and that the feature parameter redirects the write to an isolated copy, framing the parameter's intent rather than just restating it.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Write a file to the lambda's workspace') and immediately scopes it to shared, deploy-independent data. It also names what it is NOT for (front-end pages/scripts/styles, database records), so an agent can separate it from write_code and database tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (runtime assets like images, and large non-program inputs such as models, datasets, media) and when-not (front-end code belongs in the version's resources via write_code; records belong in the database). The feature parameter's purpose is also explained as a scratch copy for experimentation.

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

All GenHTTP Lambda toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources