Uploads base64-encoded file content into the runtime's sandboxed workspace, making it available for execution and file handling.
Upload base64-encoded file content into the runtime's sandboxed workspace. Path is relative to the runtime's sandboxed workspace (e.g. /content/mcp_workspace).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| content_base64 | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds that the path is workspace-relative and content is base64, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, session_id requirements, file size limits, or what the tool returns after a successful upload.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the additional path-relative detail is directly useful.
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?
The description adequately covers the primary action and path semantics, but for a tool with no annotations and no output schema it leaves gaps: session_id is undocumented and success/error behavior is not described. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.
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 needs to compensate. It does clarify that path is relative to the sandboxed workspace and that content_base64 holds base64-encoded data, but session_id is not explained at all.
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 states a specific verb (upload) and resource (base64-encoded file content into the runtime's sandboxed workspace), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling colab_write_file, but the base64 upload framing is distinct enough.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as colab_write_file or colab_upload_file's sibling file operations. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.