get_upload_linkBest way to upload screenshots from files on disk: returns a one-time URL (valid 30 min) to POST the image files to with curl (multipart field 'files', up to 10 per request). Use this instead of upload_screenshots when you have a shell, so large images don't pass through the conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | app_id from list_apps / add_app | |
| replace | No | First upload clears the app's old screenshots |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and open-world, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: one-time URL, 30-minute validity, curl multipart usage, field name 'files', and a limit of 10 files per request. That goes well beyond the annotation surface.
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: it states the tool's purpose, then the upload mechanics, then the routing advice. Every phrase contributes useful information without waste.
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 this tool and context, the description covers purpose, invocation method, constraints, return behavior, and alternative. With no output schema, it explains what is returned, and the input schema covers the parameters.
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 both app_id and replace are already documented structurally. The description does not add further meaning to either parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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, returning a one-time URL for uploading screenshots, and clearly identifies the use case of uploading image files from disk with curl. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling upload_screenshots tool by naming it directly.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this instead of upload_screenshots when you have a shell, so large images don't pass through the conversation. This names the alternative and the condition that selects it.
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.