Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unilytics MCP Server

Unilytics MCP Server

Official
by TeamUnilytics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

create_upload_link

Creates a one-time upload link so users can upload files from their browser directly into a project when the chat's code sandbox can't access outside hosts.

Instructions

Create a one-time link where the user uploads a file from their own browser into a project, for a file in a chat whose code sandbox can't reach outside hosts (claude.ai and Claude Desktop chats). destination is "knowledge_base" (the file becomes a searchable document) or "project_files" (the original is kept byte for byte for download). filename is the file's name with its extension; the link accepts only a file with that extension.

Returns {upload_link, expires_at, filename, destination, max_bytes, note} plus `signed_id` (knowledge_base: what
kb_add_file takes) or `s3_key` (project_files: what register_project_file takes). The page needs no sign-in,
works for one browser and one file, and expires about 14 minutes after the link is made. The file is in the
project only once the step-2 tool has run after the upload.
Knowledge Base: PDF, DOCX, PPTX, XLSX, XLS, CSV, TXT, MD, HTML, HTM. Project files: PPTX, PPT, XLSX, XLS, DOCX,
DOC, PDF, CSV, MD, TXT, JSON, PNG, JPG, JPEG, GIF, SVG, WEBP. Up to 256 MB.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes
project_idYes
destinationYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses the one-time, single-browser, single-file nature of the link, that no sign-in is required, that it expires in about 14 minutes, the 256 MB ceiling, per-destination accepted file types, and the fact that upload alone does not put the file in the project. This is substantially more behavioral context than the annotations carry.

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?

Purpose and the sandbox constraint are front-loaded, then returns, then link behavior, then format/size limits — a logical order with little filler. The two long comma-separated extension lists are the only verbose section, though they carry real constraint information.

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?

For a three-parameter creation tool, the definition covers the trigger condition, per-destination semantics, the mandatory follow-up step, link lifetime, size limit, and accepted formats. Return values are partly restated despite an output schema existing, but the signed_id vs s3_key mapping to the step-2 tools adds information the schema alone would not convey.

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 coverage is 0% (bare titles only), so the description must compensate, and it does for two of three parameters: destination's two values are given concrete semantics ('searchable document' vs 'kept byte for byte'), and filename is constrained ('with its extension; the link accepts only a file with that extension'). project_id is never explained, leaving one gap, but the remainder is well covered.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a one-time link where the user uploads a file') and immediately scopes it to the case that distinguishes it from other upload paths: 'a file in a chat whose code sandbox can't reach outside hosts'. An agent can tell what this produces and why it exists 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states the triggering condition (sandbox cannot reach outside hosts, claude.ai and Claude Desktop chats) and the two-step workflow, naming the follow-up tools kb_add_file and register_project_file and warning that 'The file is in the project only once the step-2 tool has run'. It does not explicitly name a when-not-to-use case against other upload siblings, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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