get_media_upload_urlPreferred media path when you can HTTP PUT. Returns a presigned URL. PUT the file bytes to that URL, then pass the returned public url into create_post. If your runtime cannot reach the storage host (common in ChatGPT), call upload_media instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| contentType | Yes |
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 goes beyond the annotations by explaining the presigned URL workflow, the requirement to PUT file bytes, and the follow-up call to create_post. Annotations only indicate non-read-only behavior, so this added context is valuable. It does not mention URL expiration or auth details, but the core behavior is 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, front-loaded with the most important guidance, and every sentence contributes actionable information. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 presigned-upload flow with no output schema, the description covers the key steps: get URL, PUT bytes, pass public URL into create_post, and fallback to upload_media. Minor ambiguity around 'returned public url' and missing upload constraints prevent a perfect score, but the essential workflow 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 0% and the description does not explain filename or contentType. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about expected formats, required conventions, or how they relate to the presigned URL generation.
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 identifies the operation as obtaining a presigned media upload URL and distinguishes it from the sibling upload_media tool. The verb-resource pairing is explicit and unambiguous.
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?
It explicitly states when to use this tool (when HTTP PUT is available) and when to use the alternative (upload_media when the storage host is unreachable). This gives the agent actionable routing guidance.
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.