complete_file_uploadVerify uploaded object metadata and accept the upload once. Repeated calls return the same result, ensuring idempotent completion.
Verify uploaded object metadata and accept it once. Repeat completion returns the same result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transfer_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds genuine context beyond the annotations: completion is idempotent ('Repeat completion returns the same result'), which the agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true alone. It does not say what happens when metadata verification fails, which is the remaining gap.
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, no waste, with the core action front-loaded and the idempotency caveat second. Nothing redundant.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should convey what a successful response looks like and what a failed verification means; it only covers the repeat-call case. Safety profile is covered by annotations, so the omission is moderate rather than severe.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the single transfer_id parameter, yet it never mentions it. The agent gets the UUID format only from the schema's pattern, with no statement of where the transfer_id comes from (presumably create_file_upload).
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 action: verify uploaded object metadata and accept it, i.e. the finalize step of an upload flow. This clearly distinguishes it from create_file_upload, get_file_upload and cancel_file_upload, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the word 'complete' — an agent can infer it must be called after create_file_upload and after the object is actually uploaded, but the description never states this ordering or any prerequisite. No when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.