Get project
uploadcare_get_projectRead-only
Get project details: name, public key, collaborators, and whether autostore is enabled. REST API: GET /project/.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
uploadcare
by io.usefulapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by listing the specific fields returned and indicating the REST API endpoint. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action, returned fields, and API reference. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about the returned fields. It is complete for the typical use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the schema provides full coverage. The description adds value by detailing what information the tool returns, compensating for the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves project details and specifies the returned fields (name, public key, collaborators, autostore enabled). It distinguishes this from sibling tools that handle webhooks, files, and groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when not to use it or related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., create webhook vs. delete file vs. get group). No two tools overlap in purpose, making it easy for an agent to select the correct one.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: uploadcare_create_webhook, uploadcare_delete_file, etc. This predictability helps agents infer tool functions from names.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the server covers key areas (files, groups, webhooks, project) without being overwhelming. The count is well-scoped for a file management service.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers core file operations (get, delete, list, store, upload) but has gaps: missing update/delete for webhooks, create/delete for groups, and update for files. These omissions may force agents to use workarounds.