Check if a file can be uploaded by validating its size in bytes and PDF file type. Confirm whether the file meets upload requirements before proceeding.
Check whether a file can be uploaded based on size and type. (Tags: Knowledge base)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestBody | Yes | The JSON request body. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by using 'Check'. It adds a small amount of context by specifying that eligibility depends on size and type, but it does not disclose behavior such as response format, limits, or whether it checks workspace restrictions. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description provides only minimal additional value.
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 concise sentence plus a tag. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean and front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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 tool is simple, and the schema covers parameters well, but the description lacks details about the expected output or any size limit knowledge. Since there is no output schema, the agent does not know whether the response is a boolean, a reason, or a status. It is complete enough for a basic check, but missing context that could affect invocation.
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 100%; file_size and file_type have descriptive text including 'Only pdf is accepted.' The description's mention of 'size and type' duplicates what the schema already provides. No additional parameter meaning is added.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check whether a file can be uploaded based on size and type.' It uses a specific verb (Check) and resource (a file) and specifies criteria (size and type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uploadKnowledgeBaseFile, which performs the actual upload.
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 implies usage for validation before upload but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks an explicit mention of uploadKnowledgeBaseFile or any exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but there is no direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.