Skip to main content
Glama

smokeball_create_file_upload

DestructiveIdempotent

Create file uploads in Smokeball through the project-bound connector by supplying project ID, connector account reference, idempotency key, and claimed effect.

Instructions

Smokeball connector operation create_file_upload (platform tool smokeball.create_file_upload).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Claimed read or write effect; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectNo
argumentsNo{}
project_idNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
idempotency_keyNo
connector_account_refNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Approval Ref"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / effect
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Effect"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Idempotency Key"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Project Id"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_ref
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Project Ref"
      +}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond those: effect is claimed and verified by Spring, approval_ref is needed when resuming a write, and routing is restricted to the governed project/account authority. This meaningfully supplements the annotations and does not contradict them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The bullet list is short and scannable, and each parameter gets a meaningful annotation. The first line is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the routing caveat and parameter list earn their place. Overall it is lean and well organized.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a governed connector operation with seven parameters, destructive behavior, and approval requirements, the description explains the platform plumbing but omits the actual domain behavior: what a file upload is, what arguments the connector expects, and how this relates to sibling Smokeball file operations. The output schema exists, but an agent still lacks the core knowledge needed to construct a valid call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It provides compact semantics for all seven parameters: project_id is an authenticated UUID, idempotency_key is a stable business-action identity, effect is a verified read/write claim, and approval_ref applies to resumed writes. The main gap is that 'arguments' remains an opaque JSON string with no indication of expected keys or structure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description mostly restates the tool name: "Smokeball connector operation `create_file_upload`" does not explain what creating a file upload actually does or what domain effect it has. It adds routing context but no clear verb+resource statement beyond the name, and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like smokeball_get_file_upload_url or smokeball_get_file.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The statement about routing through the project/account governed connector authority is a constraint, not a usage condition. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling comparison is provided.

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