Upload binary or text files to cPanel by providing a destination path and Base64-encoded content; useful for images, archives, and PDFs.
Upload a binary or text file using Base64 encoding (ideal for images, archives, PDFs)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Destination file path including filename | |
| base64_content | Yes | File data encoded in Base64 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never states whether an existing file at the path is overwritten, whether intermediate directories are created, what permissions result, whether there are size limits, or what the response contains after upload.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, with the parenthetical adding useful targeting detail. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical could have been spent on the more decision-relevant overwrite/scope caveat.
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 simple two-parameter write tool with fully documented inputs and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. Given the sibling create_file and the absence of annotations, it should have addressed file-exists behavior and whether the write is destructive.
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 coverage is 100%, with both path ('Destination file path including filename') and base64_content documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the notion that the content is binary-or-text encoded data, which the schema already conveys, so baseline 3 is appropriate; it does not clarify whether path is absolute or relative to the account home.
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?
States a specific verb (upload) and resource (file) plus the transport mechanism (Base64 encoding), which makes the tool's function unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling create_file, which an agent would likely weigh against it for plain text writes.
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 parenthetical 'ideal for images, archives, PDFs' gives implied guidance about which content types warrant this tool. There is no explicit when-not clause and no mention of create_file or edit_file as the alternatives for text content, so routing must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.