AbleSign MCP

initiate_media_replacement

Replace an existing media file by providing its ID, filename, MIME type, and size. Returns a signed PUT URL to upload the new content.

Instructions

Start replacing a media file and return a signed PUT URL.

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": {
      "media_file_id": "<media_file_id>",
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "mime_type": "<mime_type>",
      "size": "<size>"
    },
    "name": "initiate_media_replacement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`size`	Yes
`filename`	Yes
`mime_type`	Yes
`media_file_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses mutation and signed URL, but omits behavioral traits like idempotency, file lock duration, error states, or whether multiple calls are allowed. For a 0% schema coverage tool, more disclosure is needed.

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?

Single sentence, no waste. However, underspecification makes it less effective. Conciseness is good but at the cost of necessary detail.

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?

Even with an output schema (not shown), the description lacks context for a multi-step operation. It does not mention the complementary tool 'complete_media_replacement', nor constraints like file size limits or authentication needs. Incomplete for the complexity implied.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must elaborate on parameters. It does not explain any parameter beyond their names (e.g., 'size' unit, 'filename' format, 'mime_type' examples). The agent must guess or rely on external knowledge.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('start replacing a media file') and the output ('return a signed PUT URL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_media_file' by implying a multi-step process, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'initiate_media_upload' or 'complete_media_replacement'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Missing prerequisites (e.g., existing media file), post-conditions (e.g., must call 'complete_media_replacement'), or constraints (e.g., file lock during replacement). The agent has to infer the workflow from the name and siblings.

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

Deploy Server