shapeless

Upload media

assets_upload

Upload a local image, video, audio, or PDF to the brand library and return its mediaKey. Requires write scope; for chat-visible files, attach them to jobs instead.

Instructions

Upload a local image, video, audio file or PDF to the brand library; returns its mediaKey. For a file the chat should see, attach it to jobs_create/jobs_continue instead. Needs the write scope.

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": {
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "assets_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	Yes	Path to the local media file. Only files under the MCP server's working directory or SHAPELESS_UPLOAD_ROOT, with no hidden (dot) path segments, are read.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.4Oct 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the write-scope requirement and the returned mediaKey, which is useful permission and output context beyond annotations.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; purpose, return value, and the alternative route are all front-loaded in a single line.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still covers purpose, alternative, and auth requirement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single file parameter, so the schema fully documents path constraints and allowed roots. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb (Upload), the resource types (local image, video, audio, PDF), the destination (brand library), and the return value (mediaKey). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like assets_list or jobs_create without opening any schema.

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 names the alternative and the condition that selects it: for a file the chat should see, use jobs_create/jobs_continue instead. Also states the prerequisite (write scope), leaving no routing ambiguity.

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

Deploy Server