get_upload_statusCheck an upload link’s status to see which files were sent and whether they were added to the page after completion.
What happened to an upload link: the files sent to it so far and, once Done was pressed, whether they were added to the page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| upload_id | Yes | upload_id from create_upload_link. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds lifecycle context about files sent and post-Done page inclusion, but does not discuss error behavior, expired upload links, or other operational details.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It communicates the core result immediately.
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 an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and the read-only annotation covers the safety profile. It is nearly complete for a simple status tool, though it could clarify when in the upload lifecycle it should be called.
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%, and upload_id is documented as coming from create_upload_link. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.
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 clearly identifies the resource as an upload link and states that it reports files sent so far and whether they were added after Done was pressed. It is specific enough to distinguish this status lookup from create_upload_link and upload_attachment, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 phrase 'once Done was pressed' implies this is used after an upload flow has progressed, giving some contextual usage signal. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus create_upload_link or upload_attachment, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.