Skip to main content
Glama

upload_document

Upload a document to the organization's knowledge base. Documents can be templates, policies, contracts, procedures, guides, or references. They are indexed in the knowledge graph and automatically surfaced as context when relevant to a task. Supports both text and binary files: for binary files (PDFs, images, etc.), set is_base64=true and provide the content as a base64-encoded string, along with the appropriate mime_type (e.g. 'application/pdf', 'image/png'). Optionally set file_name for the original filename. Embeddings are generated automatically for search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoTags for categorization and search (e.g. ['tax', 'contract', 'template'])
titleYesDocument title
contentYesFull document content (text/markdown)
categoryYesCategory: template, policy, procedure, reference, contract, guide, checklist, other
team_idsNoTeam IDs to associate with (optional, alternative to team_names)
file_nameNoOriginal file name (e.g. 'contract.pdf'). Optional.
is_base64NoSet to true if content is base64-encoded (for binary files like PDFs, images)
mime_typeNoMIME type of the content (default: text/plain). Use application/pdf, image/png, etc. for binary files.
project_idNoProject ID to associate with (optional, alternative to project_name)
team_namesNoTeam names to associate the document with (optional, for team-level access control)
project_nameNoProject name to associate with (optional)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that documents are indexed in the knowledge graph, embeddings are generated automatically, and documents become context for tasks. It also covers the binary file handling (base64, mime_type). It does not mention permission requirements or error/duplicate handling, but it provides meaningful side-effect information beyond the basic write nature.

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 well-structured and efficient: it delivers the core purpose, document types, automatic behavior, and special binary handling in five focused sentences. Every sentence adds necessary context without padding or redundancy.

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 an upload tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what to upload, how to handle binary vs text, and what happens after upload (indexing, context surfacing). It does not explain the response format or access control nuances (e.g., team_ids vs team_names), but those are adequately described in the schema. The description is fairly complete for invoking the tool successfully.

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 already covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds valuable meaning, especially for binary files (is_base64=true, mime_type examples like 'application/pdf'). It clarifies that 'content' can be text or base64-encoded, and gives guidance on file_name. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, making the parameter usage clearer.

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 verb ('Upload') and resource ('document to the organization's knowledge base'), and lists document types (templates, policies, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document and find_documents. It also explains the indexing and context-surfacing behavior, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use this tool (to add documents to the knowledge base) and even clarifies that it supports both text and binary files. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where it should not be used, such as when searching or retrieving documents (find_documents, get_document). The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count1/5

62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.

Completeness3/5

The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.

Resources