Upload a CSV file containing device parameter mappings to a template, enabling batch application of template settings to devices.
Upload a CSV file of device parameter mappings for a template (multipart upload). Provide the CSV content base64-encoded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_name | No | Filename to report for the uploaded CSV file. | |
| template_id | Yes | ||
| file_content | Yes | Base64-encoded CSV file content. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions 'multipart upload' and base64 encoding, but omits critical details like whether the upload overwrites, validation steps, expected CSV format, size limits, or error responses.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, which is efficient but lacks structured information (e.g., no prerequisites, format guidelines). It sacrifices completeness for brevity, resulting in under-specification.
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?
Given that this is a file upload tool with no output schema and 3 parameters, the description fails to explain the multipart upload process, expected CSV structure, success/failure signals, or relationship to template mappings. Significant gaps remain for reliable agent usage.
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?
The description reinforces the file_content base64 requirement, matching the schema description. However, it does not add new meaning for template_id or file_name, and the multipart upload hint is not reflected in the schema parameters. Schema coverage is 67%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Upload' and the resource 'CSV file of device parameter mappings for a template', distinguishing it from sibling tools like sdcloud_download_template_csv or sdcloud_upload_template_workflow_definition.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., batch_save_template_mappings) or prerequisites such as template_id existence. The agent is left to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.