Context OS

workspace.complete_upload

Finalize a file upload after PUT to upload_url.

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": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>",
      "document_id": "<document_id>"
    },
    "name": "workspace.complete_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`document_id`	Yes
`workspace_id`	Yes	Workspace (notebook) UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the ordered dependency on a prior PUT to upload_url, which is the key non-obvious behavior. It says nothing about idempotency, permissions, what finalization validates, or what happens on retry.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scoped by the sequencing clause; nothing is wasted. Its brevity borders on under-specification rather than verbosity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented document_id, the definition should explain confirmation behavior, return value, and error handling. Instead it covers only the trigger condition, leaving an agent under-informed before invoking.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%: workspace_id carries a description, document_id does not. The description mentions upload_url, which is not even a parameter here, and adds no meaning for either required argument, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Finalize a file upload') and pins the lifecycle position ('after PUT to upload_url'), which distinguishes it from the sibling that initiates the upload. It does not name that sibling explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'after PUT to upload_url' gives a clear precondition for calling this tool, which is real usage guidance. There are no explicit exclusions, no named alternative (e.g. create_upload), and no statement about what to do on failure or retry.

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

All Context OS 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?