ciso_assistant_api_chat_sessions_upload_createUploads a document for indexing in a chat session's folder context so retrieval-augmented generation can reference it.
Upload a document to be indexed for RAG in this session's folder context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful RAG-indexing outcome and folder scoping, but says nothing about accepted file types, upload encoding, size limits, or whether re-uploading duplicates the index entry.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves gaps that the other dimensions penalize rather than being wasteful.
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?
For a write/upload endpoint with no output schema, one undocumented parameter, and no annotation covering file handling, the description omits the essentials an agent needs: what the id identifies and how the document payload is supplied.
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% and the single parameter is named only 'id', which is ambiguous — session id, document id, or folder id? The description mentions 'this session's folder context' but never ties the id to a session or explains its format, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 verb and resource ('Upload a document') plus the effect ('to be indexed for RAG') and the scope ('this session's folder context'). It is clear what the call accomplishes, though it does not differentiate itself from nearby upload-style siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_chat_questionnaire_runs_upload_create.
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 on when to use this instead of chat_documents_create or the other upload endpoints, and no preconditions such as an existing session. The agent must infer timing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.