Upload a PDF file to a knowledge base using base64-encoded content and a filename, enabling document storage and retrieval.
Upload a PDF file. The file content must be Base64 encoded. (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?
The only behavioral detail added beyond the annotations is the Base64 encoding requirement, which is already present in the schema's parameter description. The description does not disclose what happens on success, whether there are file size limits, if the upload is asynchronous, or what the response contains. Since there is no output schema, this omission is significant.
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 short and front-loaded, with two direct sentences plus a redundant tag. Every sentence carries some weight, though the tag '(Tags: Knowledge base)' is unnecessary given the tool name.
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 lacks an output schema, so the description should explain the return format or success indication, but it does not. It also omits reference to canUploadFile, which exists as a sibling and likely serves as a prerequisite. The nested requestBody structure is only clarified in the schema, leaving the agent without enough context for a complete 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% — both 'file' and 'filename' have descriptive text. The tool description reiterates 'PDF' and 'Base64' but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?
The description clearly states the action 'Upload' and the target resource 'a PDF file', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like listKnowledgeBaseFiles and deleteKnowledgeBaseFile, although it could more explicitly tie it to the knowledge base context beyond the tag.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as attachKnowledgeBaseFiles or canUploadFile. It does not mention any prerequisites, workflow steps, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the intended usage 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.