Upload content to object storage. Provide the content as a base64-encoded string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Object key (path) | |
| name | No | Alias of bucket — accepted for symmetry with create/delete | |
| 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.
Input schema / properties / nameAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alias of bucket — accepted for symmetry with create/delete",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the base64-encoding requirement, a genuine behavioral constraint, but does not disclose overwrite semantics or permission needs beyond what annotations imply.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key input constraint. No wasted words.
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?
For a straightforward upload tool whose annotations already convey safety and idempotency and whose schema fully documents parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. It omits overwrite behavior and any size/permission caveats, which are minor gaps given the annotation coverage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (bucket, key, name alias, content, content_type) are already documented. The description restates the base64 encoding for content without adding syntax, size limits, or format detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (Upload) and resource (content to object storage), so an agent can immediately tell what it does. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like scalix_storage_download or scalix_storage_delete_object, though the verb makes its role apparent.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not mention alternatives such as download or delete_object. It says nothing about overwriting existing objects, despite an idempotent annotation implying repeated calls overwrite.
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.