Starts a local file or folder transfer to a Baidu Netdisk directory, skips existing remote names, and lets you poll task status; file jobs return SHA-256.
Start uploading one absolute local file/folder into a Netdisk folder. Existing remote names are skipped. Poll task_status; file jobs also return the source SHA-256.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| local | Yes | ||
| remote_dir | Yes | ||
| rate_limit_bps | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: asynchronous task model, no-overwrite semantics on name collisions, and SHA-256 returned for file jobs. It doesn't explain partial-upload/resume behavior or what happens with rate limiting, but the core traits are disclosed.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then collision behavior, then the required follow-up. No 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?
Output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. The async workflow is flagged, which is essential. The only missing piece an agent would want is what rate_limit_bps=0 means, otherwise this is callable and correct.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all three parameters. It clarifies 'local' as an absolute path, 'remote_dir' as a Netdisk folder subject to skip-on-collision, but says nothing about rate_limit_bps (default 0), leaving one required-meaning gap unfilled.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Start uploading one absolute local file/folder into a Netdisk folder.' It also states the async nature (poll task_status) and the skip-if-exists rule, which lets an agent distinguish it from download, copy, and list_files without reading schema.
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?
'Poll task_status' is an explicit follow-up instruction, and 'Existing remote names are skipped' tells the agent the tool will not overwrite. It lacks an explicit when-not/alternative case (e.g., use copy for remote-to-remote moves), so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.