get_upload_targetsResolve a mod's game and ID to its v3 mod UID and list its file IDs, providing the targets needed for upload_file_version and add_changelog operations.
Resolve a mod (game + mod_id from the site URL) to its v3 mod uid and list its mod files (v3 mod_file ids) — the ids upload_file_version and add_changelog need.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | ||
| mod_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it performs a resolution from site-facing IDs to v3 IDs and returns a list of file IDs. This clarifies that the tool is a preparatory mapping step with no side effects, consistent with the annotations.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence contains all essential information without redundancy. It states the action first, then the output, then the downstream purpose—every clause earns its place.
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 read-only, two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what inputs are needed, what is returned, and why it matters. The exact result structure is not specified, but the named downstream consumers make the expected shape inferable, and annotations handle the safety profile.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. 'game + mod_id from the site URL' gives provenance and meaning to both parameters, explaining they come from the URL rather than being arbitrary values. It does not spell out exact URL structure, but this is sufficient for the two simple parameters.
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 names a specific action ('Resolve a mod... to its v3 mod uid and list its mod files') and identifies the exact downstream consumers ('the ids upload_file_version and add_changelog need'). This makes it clearly distinct from broader sibling tools like get_mod_files or get_mod, even without an explicit alternative name.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: before upload_file_version or add_changelog to obtain required IDs. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar lookups (e.g., get_mod_files), leaving the boundary between sibling tools to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.