Read an owned original, its expiry and independent metadata check status.
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": {
"upload_id": "<upload_id>"
},
"name": "get_upload"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| upload_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only "owned" originals are returned, implying an authorization/ownership constraint, plus that expiry and metadata-check status are part of the result. It does not explain what happens on a missing or unowned ID, or what the metadata check status values mean.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the compression comes at the cost of clarity rather than being an example of tight, informative writing.
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?
With no output schema and a 0%-covered parameter, the description should carry more weight. It hints at the returned fields but leaves the identifier semantics, ownership failure behavior, and the meaning of "metadata check status" unexplained. Adequate as a pointer, incomplete as a specification.
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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions upload_id or what identifier it expects. With a get_upload_session sibling present, an agent cannot tell whether this takes a session ID, a part ID, or an upload record ID. The single parameter's meaning is left entirely undefined.
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 states a read operation on an "owned original" and names two returned facets (expiry, metadata check status), which gives a rough idea of purpose. However, "original" and "independent metadata check status" are internal jargon, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_upload_session or list_uploads. An agent can guess it fetches an upload record, but the resource boundary is fuzzy.
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 versus get_upload_session, list_uploads, or get_upload_instructions, despite those being obvious near-neighbors. The word "owned" implies a scope restriction but no alternative is named for accessing non-owned uploads. Only implicit usage is conveyed.
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.