Upload a file from a URL to PutPut storage
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL of the file to upload | |
| prefix | No | Optional path prefix for organization | |
| filename | No | Optional filename override | |
| metadata | No | Optional key-value metadata | |
| visibility | No | File visibility (default: public) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function without revealing side effects (e.g., overwrites, storage location), network behavior, or whether server-side fetching occurs. This is insufficient for a write operation.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action. Every word adds value without unnecessary detail.
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?
The schema covers the parameters, but the description omits behavioral context such as the default visibility (public) and the fact that metadata is free-form. There is no output schema, so expectations about return values are missing. The description is minimal but not misleading, making it adequately complete for a basic tool.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. However, the description adds no extra meaning about how parameters interact or affect the upload, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema richness.
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 action ('Upload'), the resource ('a file'), the source ('from a URL'), and the destination ('PutPut storage'). It is specific and distinct from sibling operations like delete_file or list_files.
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?
Usage is implied: upload a file from a URL. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description does not provide context such as file size limits or required permissions.
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.
Each tool has a unique purpose: upload, list, get details, and delete. No overlap or ambiguity between actions.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: delete_file, get_file_info, list_files, upload_file.
4 tools cover the core file management lifecycle appropriately without being unnecessarily large or sparse.
The set covers create (upload), list, detail, and delete. A download or update tool is missing, but for a URL-based upload service, the existing tools cover most workflow needs.