Skip to main content
Glama

ebay_upload_post_order_document

Upload PDF, JPEG, BMP, GIF, or PNG documents (up to 5 MiB) for a post-order entity like a return, returning a documentId for subsequent eBay GraphQL publishing.

Instructions

Upload a PDF, JPEG/JPG, BMP, GIF or PNG (up to 5 MiB) for a post-order entity. Returns documentId and Location; initial state is SUBMITTED. Publishing requires a separate eBay GraphQL mutation. Animated/multi-page PNG is unsupported; PDF page limits depend on usage. Requires commerce.post_order.document consent and keyset eligibility. Local file access is opt-in: the file must sit inside a directory listed in EBAY_MCP_MEDIA_DIRS (or under EBAY_MCP_MEDIA_ROOT, which also anchors media:// references). Symlinks are resolved before the check.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path or media:// reference inside the media allowlist
entityIdYesIdentifier of the post-order entity
entityTypeYesPost-order entity type, e.g. RETURNS
documentUsageTypeYesDocument usage, e.g. RETURN_SHIPPING_LABEL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only readOnlyHint:false and destructiveHint:false annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses the initial SUBMITTED state, that publishing needs a separate mutation, unsupported animated/multi-page PNG, PDF page-limit dependency, the consent and keyset eligibility requirement, the opt-in local file access model with environment-variable directories, and symlink resolution before checks. This is far beyond what annotations provide and is fully consistent with them (no contradiction).

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?

The description is dense and every sentence earns its place, but it is on the longer side. It is well front-loaded with the core action (format and size) before moving to state, constraints, and file-access rules. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, though a slightly tighter structure around the file-access rules would push it higher.

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?

This is a complex tool (file upload, consent scoping, state transitions, and restrictive file-access model), and the description covers formats, size, return values (documentId and Location), initial state, publishing follow-up, unsupported formats, page limits, consent, directory allowlisting, and symlink behavior. Even without an output schema, the return contract is explained. Nothing an agent needs to call 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful depth to the path parameter by naming the actual environment variables (EBAY_MCP_MEDIA_DIRS, EBAY_MCP_MEDIA_ROOT) and the media:// anchoring behavior, plus the symlink-resolution detail. It does not add new meaning for entityType or documentUsageType beyond the schema's examples, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb (upload), a concrete resource (post-order entity document), and precise constraints (formats: PDF/JPEG/BMP/GIF/PNG, size: up to 5 MiB). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like ebay_upload_video, ebay_upload_images, and ebay_create_document by the 'post-order entity' scope. However, it never names an alternative tool explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied rather than explicit. The statement 'initial state is SUBMITTED' and 'Publishing requires a separate eBay GraphQL mutation' signal that this is a prerequisite step in a workflow, and the consent/keyset eligibility line describes prerequisites. But there is no direct 'use this when X, otherwise use Y' guidance that would help an agent choose between this and ebay_upload_document or ebay_create_document.

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