Upload a CV or resume file to the current page's file input via CSS selector. Defaults to the primary CV, or specify a document ID.
Upload a CV/resume file to a file input on the current page. Uses the primary CV by default, or specify a document ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector | Yes | CSS selector for the file input | |
| document_id | No | Document ID to upload. If omitted, uses the primary CV. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It describes the default document behavior but omits important traits such as required browser state, permission or authentication needs, whether the upload waits for completion, and error handling or side effects. This is a significant gap for an action that modifies a page.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the default document behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple two-parameter upload tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate to call the tool. However, with no annotations, it should do more to cover prerequisites and operational context such as page state and upload confirmation behavior.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats the document_id default behavior and does not add syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource: upload a CV/resume file to a file input on the current page. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools such as set_default_cv or fill_form_field. An agent can identify its purpose without opening the schema.
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?
It implies usage context by saying the upload targets a file input on the current page and defaults to the primary CV. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fill_form_field, nor does it describe prerequisites such as requiring an open page or a visible file input.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.