Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IMALI Commander

IMALI Commander

Official
by IMALI-DEFI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

upload_file

Writes a base64-encoded file into an approved workspace and enforces a 5 MB size limit.

Instructions

Write base64-encoded file into approved workspace (max 5 MB)

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": "<file>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "upload_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
fileYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful behaviors — the payload must be base64-encoded and the size ceiling is 5 MB (which explains the schema's larger 7,340,032-char maxLength as base64 expansion) — but it is silent on overwrite behavior, permission/auth requirements, and what is returned.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded clause with zero filler; the encoding format, destination, and size cap all land immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the specification gaps rather than purely a virtue.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating, unannotated tool with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of the `file` parameter, overwrite/conflict semantics, error conditions for exceeding the size cap, and any indication of the return value.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the `data` parameter (base64-encoded, 5 MB limit) but leaves `file` unexplained — whether it is a path, a filename, or an identifier is not stated, and 'approved workspace' only weakly implies a path.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Write'), resource ('base64-encoded file'), target scope ('approved workspace'), and a hard constraint ('max 5 MB'). An agent knows exactly what operation this performs, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling write_file.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With siblings named write_file, download_file, and read_file present, the agent gets no help deciding why it would upload a base64 payload here rather than write text via write_file.

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