mistral_upload_fileUpload a file to Mistral AI for fine-tuning, batch jobs, or OCR. Supply base64 or JSONL content plus a filename to prepare data for training or processing.
Upload a file for fine-tuning, batch processing, or OCR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purpose | No | Purpose | fine-tune |
| filename | Yes | Filename | |
| file_content | Yes | Base64 or raw JSONL content |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is structurally covered. The description confirms the upload behavior and purpose-dependent processing, but adds no details about authentication, file size limits, retention, overwrite behavior, or return values beyond what annotations already provide.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward file upload tool.
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?
The definition is minimally adequate: it states the action and purposes, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema and no return-value information, an agent lacks guidance on what the upload produces (e.g., file ID) or how to reference the uploaded file in subsequent fine-tuning, batch, or OCR calls.
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 the schema already documents the three parameters including the purpose enum. The description restates the purpose categories but adds no additional syntax, format requirements, or constraints, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Upload a file') and names three intended purposes ('fine-tuning, batch processing, or OCR'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like mistral_ocr or the fine-tuning/batch job creation tools.
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 implies usage contexts by naming fine-tuning, batch processing, and OCR, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g., when to use mistral_upload_file versus mistral_ocr directly). The guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.