Torna um arquivo PÚBLICO e devolve uma URL estável (https://api.mcp.ai/f/<token>) pra embutir num site (ex.: thumbnail). O objeto continua privado no storage, o token é a chave (revogável com crm_unpublish_file). Egress da visualização pública é contabilizado.
Bulk support: accepts file_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| file_id | Yes | ||
| file_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even though annotations already convey that this is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent, the description adds meaningful behavior: the object remains private in storage, the token is the revocable key, public-view egress is billed, and bulk execution via file_ids is supported. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and output, followed by a practical URL example, key behavioral caveats, and a brief bulk-support note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
Given that there is no output schema and annotations are minimal, the description covers the main return value (stable URL), use case, reversibility, egress accounting, and bulk behavior. It is missing context around the account parameter and possible error/prerequisite conditions, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that file_ids enables batched execution, which adds real meaning. However, it does not clarify the optional account parameter or the relationship between file_id and file_ids, leaving part of the parameter surface ambiguous.
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 clearly states the tool makes a file public and returns a stable embeddable URL, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like crm_unpublish_file, crm_get_file, and crm_delete_file. It uses a specific verb plus resource and includes a concrete use case (embedding a thumbnail).
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?
The description provides clear context for use (embedding in a site) and points to crm_unpublish_file as the revocation mechanism, giving useful orientation. It does not explicitly contrast with other file-related tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.