DubSync

Import a ChatGPT video file

dub_import_file

Idempotent

Copies a user-selected ChatGPT video attachment up to 128 MiB to the connected DubSync account for media preparation. Ask permission to upload this specific video first. Supports known-length downloads from OpenAI-owned oaiusercontent.com hosts; unsupported or expired links require a fresh supported file or direct HTTP upload. Does not start translation or authorize AI processing.

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "uploadConfirmed": "<uploadConfirmed>",
      "idempotencyKey": "<idempotencyKey>"
    },
    "name": "dub_import_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	Yes
`idempotencyKey`	Yes	A stable unique key for this operation. Reuse it with the exact same input after a timeout; never generate a new key to retry.
`uploadConfirmed`	Yes	True only after the user authorizes copying this specific file into their DubSync account. This is not translation consent.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	The safe public API response, or resumable-upload status.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 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 hard limits (128 MiB), host allowlisting (OpenAI-owned oaiusercontent.com), known-length download requirement, failure/expiry behavior, and the explicit consent boundary that import is not translation consent. These are operational facts an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint=false / openWorldHint=true / idempotentHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and size cap, then constraints, then exclusions — no filler sentences. Slightly dense with stacked negation clauses ('Does not start translation or authorize AI processing'), but every clause carries decision-relevant 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 nested-object mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers size, source-host, expiry, and consent prerequisites without needing to explain return values. The remaining gap is workflow placement — it does not say which tool to call next once the media is imported.

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 67%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning, including a detailed idempotencyKey retry rule and uploadConfirmed's const=true constraint. The description reinforces the consent semantics of uploadConfirmed ('Ask permission... this specific video') but adds nothing about file, file_id, or download_url beyond what the schema states.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: 'Copies a user-selected ChatGPT video attachment up to 128 MiB to the connected DubSync account for media preparation.' It also draws a boundary against sibling workflows ('Does not start translation or authorize AI processing'), though the direct upload alternative is described generically rather than by the sibling name.

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?

It states a clear precondition ('Ask permission to upload this specific video first') and when the tool will not work ('unsupported or expired links require a fresh supported file or direct HTTP upload'). It falls short of a 5 because it never names the concrete alternative tool for the direct-upload path or the follow-on step after import.

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

All DubSync 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?