Tier 1 Protocol

Authorize sources for Tier 1

authorize_sources

Add selected private ChatGPT files to the paid account's Tier 1 context. Show the filenames and fixed 30-day retention and require explicit confirmation before calling. This upload consent applies to private file intake only; it does not define or narrow the other policy-eligible catalogs Tier 1 may route. Authentication and an active paid plan are required.

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": {
      "files": "<files>",
      "authorization_confirmed": "<authorization_confirmed>",
      "retention_days": "<retention_days>"
    },
    "name": "authorize_sources"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`files`	Yes	Files the signed-in user selected in ChatGPT for Tier 1 to route.
`retention_days`	Yes	The fixed retention period for this authorization.
`authorization_confirmed`	Yes	Must be true only after the user explicitly confirms that Tier 1 may retain and route these files for 30 days.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`files`	Yes
`replayed`	Yes
`expiresAt`	Yes
`authorized`	Yes
`totalBytes`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), the description adds real context: an authentication requirement, an active paid plan requirement, a fixed 30-day retention window, and a mandatory user-confirmation gate. It does not say how to revoke the authorization or what happens to existing authorized files on repeat calls, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the consent requirement. The final two sentences (scope exclusion and prerequisites) are useful but worded slightly redundantly with the schema's own descriptions.

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 a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers what it uniquely must: consent protocol, retention window, auth/plan prerequisites, and the scope boundary. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 parameters are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description echoes the fixed 30-day retention and the confirmation requirement but adds no format, ordering, or batching semantics beyond what the schema says.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and object ('Add selected private ChatGPT files to the paid account's Tier 1 context'), which is far more informative than the name or title alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fetch, search, or render_context_results, but the 'authorize/consent' framing is distinct enough on its own.

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 concrete precondition ('Show the filenames and fixed 30-day retention and require explicit confirmation before calling') and scopes the consent ('applies to private file intake only'), which tells the agent when this call is appropriate and what it does not cover. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating an explicit when-not-to-call condition.

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

All Tier 1 Protocol 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.