upload_mediaFallback when you cannot PUT to the presigned URL from get_media_upload_url. Pass a ChatGPT file in file, or a public https sourceUrl. SocialRobot fetches the bytes and stores them, then returns the permanent url for create_post. Prefer get_media_upload_url when you can PUT. Max 50MB.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | ||
| filename | No | ||
| sourceUrl | No | ||
| contentType | No |
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?
The description discloses the core behavior: SocialRobot fetches the bytes, stores them, and returns the permanent URL, plus the 50MB limit. Annotations are limited to safety signals, so this added behavioral context is valuable. It could mention failure modes or what happens when both file and sourceUrl are provided, but it is largely transparent.
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. Every sentence contributes: fallback condition, payload options, behavior/result, preferred alternative, and size limit. There is no repetition of schema details or wasted wording.
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 description gives an agent enough to decide when to call it, what to pass, what happens, and what is returned. It is slightly incomplete around optional metadata parameters and the exact mutual-exclusion contract, but the schema provides the structural details. Given the tool's complexity, this is a strong and usable definition.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains that 'file' is a ChatGPT file and 'sourceUrl' is a public https URL, and implies they are alternatives. However, it leaves 'filename' and 'contentType' unexplained, and does not mention the array form of 'file' or the implied at-least-one-source requirement.
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 this tool uploads media as a fallback when PUT to the presigned URL from get_media_upload_url is not possible. It specifies what SocialRobot does with the bytes and that it returns a permanent URL for create_post, distinguishing it from related siblings.
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 guidance is explicit: use this tool when you cannot PUT to the presigned URL from get_media_upload_url, and prefer get_media_upload_url when PUT is possible. This gives the agent a clear decision rule for choosing between the two upload paths.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.