swarme_upload_session_createCreate a signed upload reservation for a machine-native file capability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| run_id | No | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| byte_size | Yes | ||
| mime_type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation creates a signed reservation, but does not explain side effects, authentication requirements, expiration, or what the returned reservation is meant for.
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 sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise—the vague jargon does not earn its place as the sole explanatory content.
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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. Even though an output schema exists, the agent still lacks understanding of what inputs mean, when to call it, and what behavioral expectations apply.
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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention slug, filename, mime_type, byte_size, or run_id at all, leaving all five parameters semantically opaque.
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 states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('signed upload reservation'), which clearly distinguishes this from a generic upload tool. However, the phrase 'machine-native file capability' is vague and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The phrase 'for a machine-native file capability' weakly implies a use case, but it is not actionable and does not name any sibling or exclusion.
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.
Tools are grouped into distinct resource families (account, AI, capabilities, discover, experiments, tool runs, uploads, vault), so most are easy to tell apart. However, multiple 'status' tools and the two Vault metadata tools (documents and summary) could be confused without reading the descriptions carefully.
All tools share a consistent swarme_ prefix and snake_case style, making them predictable. The pattern is not uniformly verb_noun, and there is a plural mismatch between swarme_capabilities_search and swarme_capability_describe, but the naming is generally coherent.
22 tools is on the heavy side and above the typical 3-15 range for a focused MCP server. While the platform covers many domains and each tool has a role, several status-related tools could have been consolidated.
Core workflows like tool runs, experiments, AI model jobs, and Vault fills are well covered. Notable gaps remain: no cancellation for AI jobs or experiments, no listing endpoints for runs/experiments, no Vault field read/delete, and the upload session has no companion completion/status tool.