neuron_upload_mediaUpload a media file (image, video, audio, or document) by providing its base64-encoded content. Returns a URL for use in messages and broadcasts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base64 | Yes | Base64-encoded file content (without data URI prefix) | |
| filename | Yes | Original filename including extension (e.g., 'photo.jpg', 'report.pdf') | |
| mimetype | Yes | MIME type of the file (e.g., 'image/jpeg', 'image/png', 'application/pdf', 'video/mp4') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide minimal safety info (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds only that base64 encoding is required and a URL is returned. Missing details like file size limits, accepted MIME types beyond categories, URL expiration, or authentication needs.
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?
Two concise sentences: first states action and input format, second states output usage. No redundancy, front-loaded information, efficient.
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?
Adequately covers basic purpose, input, and output, but lacks details on file size limits, allowed file types beyond categories, and behavior for invalid inputs. For a simple upload tool, this is minimally viable but incomplete.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the description essentially repeats 'base64-encoded content' without adding constraints like max file size, allowed formats, or examples. Baseline 3 not met because description adds no value beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool uploads a media file (image, video, audio, or document) and returns a URL, but fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'neuron_upload_document', which suggests overlap and may cause confusion.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'neuron_upload_document' or send-related tools. No mention of prerequisites or context.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource type, but there is meaningful overlap in messaging entry points (send_message, send_whatsapp, compose_message, bot_api_send) and contact ingestion/sync tools (import_contacts, populate_contacts, sync_whatsapp_contacts). The descriptions help disambiguate, but with 309 tools an agent will frequently need to read closely to pick the right one.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*. Minor deviations like sales_stats, lead_stats, wallet_balance, and whoami break the pattern slightly, but overall naming is highly predictable.
309 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, even a broad platform. This creates significant cognitive load and navigation overhead for agents, and far exceeds the well-scoped 3-15 tool range where coherence is strongest.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive across bots, contacts, campaigns, flows, knowledge bases, personas, marketplace, wallet, and products. Minor gaps exist — lead sources lack update/delete tools, and there is no single get_task or get_webhook alongside their list/update/delete counterparts — but these are workable gaps rather than dead ends.