uploadcare_get_fileGet full info for a single file: uuid, url, original_filename, size, mime_type, is_image, is_ready, timestamps, variations, content_info, metadata, tags. REST API: GET /files/{uuid}/.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | File UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context by listing returned fields and the REST API endpoint, enhancing understanding beyond annotations.
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 sentences, no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, and every part adds value. Bullet-style list is efficient.
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?
With a single parameter, high schema coverage, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately covers what an agent needs. Listing returned fields compensates for lack of output schema.
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% and the only parameter 'uuid' is described as 'File UUID.' The tool description does not add further meaning, so 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full info for a single file', listing specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings like uploadcare_list_files (list) and uploadcare_get_file_metadata (presumably metadata-only).
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?
The description indicates when to use (to retrieve full file info) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. However, given sibling tools, the usage is implied.
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.