Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Huawei App Gallery

Huawei App Gallery

by AgiMaulana
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

upload_app_file

Upload APK or AAB files from a local path to AppGallery Connect, with automatic chunking for files over 4 GB.

Instructions

Upload APK/AAB from local disk to AppGallery (get URL → upload, auto-chunked >4 GB → attach to draft).

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_path": "<file_path>",
      "file_type": "<file_type>"
    },
    "name": "upload_app_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_idNoAppGallery Connect app ID. Optional if HUAWEI_APP_ID is set in the environment.
file_pathYesAbsolute local path to APK or AAB.
file_typeYes1=APK, 2=RPK, 5=AAB.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions auto-chunking for files >4 GB, which adds value, but fails to disclose safety (destructive), idempotency, or permission requirements for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence front-loads the main action and packs essential workflow details in parentheses with no wasted words. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Given missing annotations and output schema, description explains the workflow well (URL, upload, chunking, draft attachment). Lacks return value or error handling details, but is largely complete for the tool's multi-step nature.

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 description coverage is 100%, so description adds little beyond confirming file_path and file_type map to APK/AAB and local disk. The 'auto-chunked' detail is behavioral, not param-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (Upload), resource (APK/AAB to AppGallery), and distinct workflow (get URL, auto-chunked >4 GB, attach to draft), differentiating it from siblings like upload_file and get_upload_url.

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?

Description implies the tool is used after obtaining an upload URL and before attaching to draft, referencing the process. However, it lacks explicit when-not or alternatives like submit_app_with_file, making context clear but not exhaustive.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools