Upload content to object storage. Provide the content as a base64-encoded string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Object key (path) | |
| bucket | Yes | Target bucket name | |
| content | Yes | Base64-encoded file content | |
| content_type | No | MIME type | application/octet-stream |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating potential overwrites and idempotency. The description does not elaborate on these aspects, such as whether existing objects are overwritten, but it does not contradict the annotations either. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, directly worded sentence that states the core function and the key content format requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity of an upload operation and the presence of annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description is minimally sufficient but omits important details such as whether the bucket must already exist, behavior on overwriting, and return value. These gaps are partially mitigated by the annotations and schema, but a more complete description would include prerequisites and side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), including the base64 encoding requirement for content. The description adds no new information beyond what the schema already states, so it scores at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Upload') and resource ('object storage'), making it distinct from sibling tools like scalix_storage_download or scalix_storage_list. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (uploading content to object storage) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternatives. Sibling tool names help, but no direct exclusion or alternative is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are grouped by service prefix and generally target distinct resources/actions. A few execution surfaces could be confused (sandbox_run vs computer_exec vs fn_invoke; build_create vs fn_deploy vs run_deploy), and storage_list is overloaded for both buckets and objects, but descriptions clarify the boundaries well.
The scalix_ prefix plus snake_case is used throughout, and most tools follow <service>_<verb>_<noun>. Minor deviations like scalix_search, scalix_status, and scalix_usage omit a service-domain qualifier, but the overall pattern is predictable and easy to navigate.
53 tools is a very large surface. While the server covers a broad multi-service cloud platform, the count falls well beyond the 25+ threshold and will likely feel overwhelming; many service areas could reasonably be split into separate servers or trimmed.
Several service lifecycles have obvious gaps: the KV store has get/list/set but no delete, storage has upload/download/list but no delete for objects or buckets, functions have deploy/list/invoke but no delete/update, and cron has create but no list/delete. These missing operations create dead ends for agents managing common resources.
