Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pepys-mcp

pepys-mcp

by ankurmans
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Upload local media

upload_file

Upload local audio or video files to obtain a file reference for transcription via Pepys API. Supports base64 bytes or file path input.

Instructions

Upload local audio/video the agent is holding (as base64 bytes or a file path) and get back a file_ref to pass to transcribe. Use this when the media has no public URL. Requires the Pepys R2 storage backend.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "upload_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoAbsolute path to a local audio/video file. Provide EITHER path OR bytes_base64.
filenameNoOriginal filename (used to infer content type when mime_type is omitted).
mime_typeNoaudio/* or video/* content type. Inferred from the filename/path extension if omitted.
bytes_base64NoBase64-encoded media bytes. Provide EITHER path OR bytes_base64.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by mentioning the return value (file_ref) and the storage backend requirement. Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and usage guideline without extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value (file_ref) and the purpose. It also mentions the storage backend requirement. It is fairly complete, though it omits failure conditions or size limits.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and the description mentions the alternative between path and bytes_base64, it does not add significant meaning beyond what is already in the parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Upload local audio/video' and explains the purpose: to get a file_ref for transcribing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like transcribe and export_transcript.

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 says 'Use this when the media has no public URL', providing a clear usage context. It also mentions the requirement for the Pepys R2 storage backend. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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