upload_imageSend a local JPEG, PNG, WebP, or GIF file to the Misar.Blog CDN by providing its absolute file path. Use it to host images for blog posts and articles.
Upload a local image file to the Misar.Blog CDN
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Absolute path to the image file (JPEG, PNG, WebP, or GIF) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.1.3Input schema / properties / file_path / descriptionPrevious value: -"Absolute path to the image on this machine, e.g. '/Users/me/cover.png'. JPEG, PNG, WebP or GIF; the type is inferred from the extension."New value: +"Absolute path to the image file (JPEG, PNG, WebP, or GIF)"v5.1.0Input schema / properties / file_path / descriptionPrevious value: -"Absolute path to the image file (JPEG, PNG, WebP, or GIF)"New value: +"Absolute path to the image on this machine, e.g. '/Users/me/cover.png'. JPEG, PNG, WebP or GIF; the type is inferred from the extension."v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and external-network profile is covered. The description adds the destination (Misar.Blog CDN) but says nothing about auth requirements, size/format limits, overwrite behavior, or what is returned, so it only modestly extends the annotations.
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?
One short sentence with the action and destination front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema, the description never says what an upload produces (presumably a CDN URL the agent needs for embedding), which is the key missing detail.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including accepted formats, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about file_path beyond what the schema already documents.
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), resource (a local image file), and destination (the Misar.Blog CDN), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling generate_cover_image, which also concerns image assets, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as generate_cover_image or how an uploaded asset relates to article/cover workflows. The agent must infer all routing 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.