Add a file to a knowledge collection.
The file must be uploaded and indexed first (files_upload + files_ingest). If the file was previously removed, it is re-enabled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | ID of the file to add (from files_upload) | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. | |
| collection_id | Yes | ID of the collection |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value on top: it discloses the required upload/index state and the notable side effect that a previously removed file is re-enabled rather than duplicated.
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 short sentences with zero waste; the primary action is front-loaded and the supporting conditions follow. Nothing here could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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?
For a three-parameter add operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisites and state behavior an agent needs before calling. It stops short of describing failure modes or what a successful add returns, but the core is complete.
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 100%, so collection_id, file_id, and the workspace override are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a file to a knowledge collection.' An agent can immediately tell it apart from collections_remove_file or files_ingest by the action and target. It stops short of naming sibling tools, so it doesn't reach the top of the scale.
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?
Provides a concrete precondition: the file must be uploaded and indexed first via files_upload + files_ingest, which tells the agent when this call is valid. It doesn't name alternative tools for adjacent operations, but the sequencing order is clear and actionable.
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.