Snip

Share a file with a short link

drop_file

Put a file on the web and get a short snip.link link to it, free. Send text (a note, Markdown, CSV, JSON, code) as content, or any other file (a PDF, a picture, a document) as content_base64, with its file name. The link opens a page that shows the file with a download button and a QR code; the link with the file's extension is the file itself, and file.formats lists its available conversion URLs. Supported pairs, MIME types and fidelity notes are at https://snip.link/convert/formats.json; outputs depend on the file and engine limits. A pending conversion returns 202 with Retry-After. Files are at most 10 MB through this tool; use the REST API for larger files. Use this when the user wants to share, send, publish, host or link to a file, or wants something you wrote available as a link or a QR code. Files shared without an account stay up for 30 days unless the user keeps them with a free account.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "drop_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The file name with its extension, which decides how it is shown: notes.md, prices.csv, photo.png.
`title`	No	A title for the user's dashboard (signed in only).
`content`	No	The file's text, for text files.
`content_base64`	No	The file's bytes in base64, for anything else.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, it discloses concrete operational traits an agent could not otherwise know: a 10 MB ceiling for this tool, a 202 plus Retry-After response for pending conversions, a 30-day retention window for anonymous uploads, and the dual nature of the returned link. That is exactly the kind of behavior the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint flags cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The key action and the content/content_base64 routing come first, followed by return behavior, limits, and the when-to-use sentence. It is dense but every clause carries information; the only cost is a slightly run-on middle section about formats and conversions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly: the link opens a viewer page with download and QR code, the extension-suffixed link is the raw file, and file.formats lists conversion URLs. Combined with the size cap and retention note, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the name-with-extension rule. The description only reinforces the content vs content_base64 split ('Send text ... as content, or any other file ... as content_base64'), adding little beyond the schema text itself, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and outcome: put a file on the web and get a short snip.link link. It clearly frames the resource as a file, which implicitly separates it from shorten_link (URLs) and save_page (pages), though it never names a sibling explicitly and its mention of a QR code brushes against make_qr_code's territory.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use this when the user wants to share, send, publish, host or link to a file, or wants something you wrote available as a link or a QR code' gives a clear triggering context, and 'use the REST API for larger files' supplies one alternative path. It stops short of naming the sibling tools an agent should prefer for URLs or plain pages.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Snip tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?