Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_document_upload_url

Obtain a signed upload URL to add documents to RocketMatter, enabling uploads beyond read-only access.

Instructions

[Not in LCS /v1] Signed upload URLs are not exposed by /v1 (read-only documents). Fails loudly.

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": {
      "fields_json": "<fields_json>"
    },
    "name": "get_document_upload_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fields_jsonYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description discloses that the tool fails loudly, but does not explain why (e.g., API restrictions, missing permissions) or what 'fails loudly' entails (error message, exception). Without annotations, this is minimal transparency.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is very short (one sentence) but lacks essential information, making it under-specified rather than concise. It fails to earn its place by not providing useful guidance.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the low complexity (1 parameter) and presence of output schema, the description should still explain the tool's actual behavior, current limitations, and expected output. Instead, it only states failure, leaving the agent without complete information.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The only parameter 'fields_json' is completely undocumented in the description (schema coverage 0%). The description adds no meaning about what fields_json should contain or how it relates to the upload URL.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description states the tool is '[Not in LCS /v1]' and 'fails loudly', indicating it does not actually provide an upload URL. This misleads the agent about the tool's functional purpose, which contradicts typical expectations of a 'get' tool.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance on when to use the tool; it only says it fails loudly, implying it should not be used. No alternatives or context provided despite the existence of sibling tools like 'get_document_download_url'.

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