warp-mcp

Upload a port document

port_upload_document

Upload a supporting document (LOA, bill copy, CSR, or other, max 25MB) to a port's TNIQ project as evidence for a customer-signed LOA or supporting proof.

Instructions

Upload a supporting document (LOA, bill copy, CSR, or other; max 25MB) to the port's TNIQ project from a local file. Use for a customer-signed LOA or supporting evidence; to have WARP generate the LOA instead, use port_generate_loa. Errors: INVALID_PAYLOAD, NOT_FOUND, TNIQ_VALIDATION, TNIQ_ERROR.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "doc_type": "<doc_type>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "port_upload_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Port request UUID (from port_list_requests or port_create_request)
`doc_type`	Yes	Document type: LOA \| BILL \| CSR \| OTHER
`file_path`	Yes	Absolute path to the local file to upload (max 25MB)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. Description adds file size limit, document types, and lists concrete error codes (INVALID_PAYLOAD, NOT_FOUND, TNIQ_VALIDATION, TNIQ_ERROR), which is helpful for handling failures.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two well-structured sentences plus error codes. No fluff, every part adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description explains purpose, alternatives, constraints (file size, type), and errors. It is sufficiently complete for a simple upload tool with clear parameters.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage (id, doc_type with enum, file_path). Description reinforces that file_path is absolute and doc_type enum, but does not add meaningfully beyond the schema definitions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly identifies the action (upload), the resource (supporting document to port's TNIQ project), and scope (LOA, bill copy, CSR, other; max 25MB). It distinguishes from sibling tool port_generate_loa.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use ('customer-signed LOA or supporting evidence') and when not ('to have WARP generate the LOA instead, use port_generate_loa'). Provides clear decision context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server