DetailX Video Upscaler

resume_upload

Request asynchronous part reconciliation for the reselected same original file.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "fingerprint": "<fingerprint>"
    },
    "name": "resume_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session_id`	Yes
`fingerprint`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds that the operation is asynchronous part reconciliation, but it does not explain what reconciliation does, what upload state is required, or how the session changes afterward.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single sentence with no wasted clauses, but it is under-specified and dominated by jargon like 'part reconciliation'. It is concise without being informative.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation-oriented upload tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description omits essential context: parameter meanings, preconditions, and expected post-call state. An agent would have to infer how to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both required parameters, session_id and fingerprint, have 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions either one. It does not explain what a session ID identifies or what the fingerprint represents.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description says 'Request asynchronous part reconciliation' rather than plainly stating that it resumes an interrupted upload. It does not clearly distinguish this operation from sibling tools such as complete_upload or sign_upload_parts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage hint is 'reselected same original file', which is cryptic and does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus cancel_upload, complete_upload, or create_upload_session. No when-not guidance or alternatives are named.

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

All DetailX Video Upscaler 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?