Sends local DICOM files or directories to a configured node using C-STORE or STOW-RS, letting agents transmit imaging data from allowed paths to DIMSE or DICOMweb archives.
Send local DICOM files to a node (C-STORE or STOW-RS).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | Name of a configured DICOM node (see list_nodes). | |
| paths | Yes | Local DICOM files or directories inside the allowed paths. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds protocol-level context by naming C-STORE and STOW-RS, but does not explain failure behavior, overwrite semantics, or authentication needs beyond what annotations imply.
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?
The definition is a single sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every word 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?
With a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, much of the context is already structured. However, for a network mutation tool the description could better explain its relation to sibling tools and any operational constraints, leaving a moderate gap in contextual completeness.
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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as path restrictions or node configuration details, so the baseline of 3 applies when schema carries the full burden.
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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('local DICOM files to a node'), and names the two supported protocols (C-STORE / STOW-RS). It clearly indicates an upload-from-local operation, distinguishing it from retrieval or metadata tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like transfer or move.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives such as transfer or move for remote-to-remote operations. The schema notes that the node must be configured, but the description itself leaves selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.