Store text content on IPFS and receive a content identifier for decentralized, persistent access. Use this tool to save data to the InterPlanetary File System from any MCP-enabled application.
Store text content on IPFS
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text content to store on IPFS |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose critical behavioral details: what gets returned (presumably a CID/hash), whether storage is permanent, if pinning is handled, or error conditions. The agent cannot infer the result format.
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?
Extremely concise at four words. The sentence earns its place with a clear action statement, though the brevity leaves significant gaps given the absence of annotations and output schema.
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?
With no output schema, the description must communicate what the tool returns (the CID/reference), but omits this entirely. For an external storage operation, this is a critical omission; the agent won't know how to reference the stored content.
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 100%, documenting the 'text' parameter fully. The description repeats 'text content' from the schema without adding format constraints, examples, or size limits, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 clearly states the verb (Store), resource (text content), and target system (IPFS). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'retrieve_from_ipfs' through the opposing verb, though it doesn't explicitly mention that sibling.
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?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus 'retrieve_from_ipfs' or other storage methods. No mention of constraints like text-only limitation (though enforced by schema) or when storage might fail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.