Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
arcane-mcp

arcane-mcp

by MikeCase
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

upload_to_volume

Write files directly into Docker volumes by specifying name, path, and content. Simplify data management for containerized applications.

Instructions

Upload a file to a path inside a volume.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "path": "<path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "upload_to_volume"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
pathYes
env_idNo0
contentYes
agent_tokenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether it overwrites existing files, size limits, or required volume state. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks essential detail. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity sacrifices informativeness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error handling, and prerequisite conditions.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds no parameter explanations. The terms 'file' and 'path' are vague; it does not clarify what 'name', 'content', or 'path' mean, nor format requirements (e.g., base64 encoding).

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 (upload) and the target resource (file to a path inside a volume). It differentiates from sibling tools like read_volume_file or delete_volume_file, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 or how to use this tool. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., volume must exist) or when not to use it (e.g., for images, use upload_image).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools