Skip to main content
Glama

x_api_append_media_upload

Append a media segment to an existing X media upload using the specified media ID and payload. Complete chunked multi-part uploads by adding the next piece to the upload.

Instructions

Append Media upload. Use when: Append Media upload. Do not use when: a more specific auth/configuration tool is required before the API call or you are only exploring; prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first. Risk: mutating, high-risk. Required permissions and prerequisites: OAuth 2 user token with scopes media.write; OAuth 1a user token Environment-selection behavior: scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId or scopeAccountId choose the Vault/Postgres tenant principal used for auth resolution. credentialKey selects a non-default stored credential profile when present. Parameter formats and constraints: id (path, unknown, required); body is used for the documented request payload. Expected response shape: { ok, status, data: { method, path, url, status, contentType, authType, data } } Common failure conditions: missing scoped credentials in Vault, missing required API parameters, X API auth failures, rate limits, or unsupported multipart/body shape. Recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools: x_connection_info, x_schema_discovery, x_auth_upsert_principal_credentials, x_api_request. Safety warnings: This mutates X state. Validate scope, payload, and authorizationKey before use. Example: {"name":"x_api_append_media_upload","arguments":{"scopeTenantId":"default","scopeUserId":"default","id":"","body":{}}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
bodyNo
scopeUserIdNo
credentialKeyNo
multipartFormNo
scopeTenantIdNo
scopeAccountIdNo
authorizationKeyNo
preferredAuthTypeNo
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and provides substantial behavior: 'Risk: mutating, high-risk,' required OAuth scopes, environment-selection behavior, common failure conditions, and a safety warning to validate before use. It does not fully explain the upload state mutation, but it is far beyond minimal.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is organized into labeled sections and includes an example, making it scannable. However, it repeats risk/safety warnings and includes the tautological 'Use when: Append Media upload,' so not every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

It provides expected response shape, failure conditions, permissions, and safety warnings, which is helpful given no output schema or annotations. Yet the core media-upload workflow is missing: what id refers to, how body/multipartForm should be structured, and how append relates to initialize/finalize.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely covers id and body and explains auth-related scope/credential parameters. multipartForm and preferredAuthType are never mentioned, and body's structure is not specified beyond 'documented request payload.'

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description opens with 'Append Media upload,' which largely restates the tool name without explaining the action in context. It fails to define what 'append' means (e.g., uploading a chunk to an existing media upload) or distinguish this from x_api_initialize_media_upload, x_api_finalize_media_upload, or x_api_chat_media_upload_append.

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?

The 'Use when' line is tautological ('Append Media upload'), and the 'Do not use when' only warns against exploratory use, suggesting x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion. It provides no guidance on choosing this over closely related media-upload sibling tools or sequencing after initialize/finalize.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LesterAJohn/X-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server