SceneScout

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

scout_upload

Simulate a user attaching a file to an upload control, verify accept-attribute validation, and check whether selection triggers a state-changing request or client-side rejection.

Instructions

Attach a file to an upload control the way a user does. ref is either a visible (snapshots list these with role file) or the button/label/dropzone that opens the file chooser — the chooser is intercepted and answered, which is how the hidden input behind a styled 'Choose file' control is reached. Omit ref to target the page's only file input, hidden or not (snapshots disclose hidden ones on a FILE INPUTS line). Nothing needs to exist on disk: a small VALID fixture (real PDF/PNG structure) is generated in memory, its kind inferred from the input's accept attribute or chosen with fixture; filePath uploads a real file but must live inside the attached project (fenced like navigation is fenced to the origin); name overrides the filename for boundary tests (wrong extension vs accept, very long, unicode). The result names the input, how the file reached it, flags a file that violates accept (a mismatch the app then accepts is a validation finding), warns if the app cleared the input after selection, and says whether a state-changing request fired on selection — if none did, click the form's submit, or check the next snapshot for a client-side rejection.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	No	Element ref of the file input OR of the control that opens the file chooser; omit when the page has exactly one file input
`name`	No	Filename override (default scenescout-fixture.<kind>, or the disk file's own name)
`task`	No	What you are DOING right now, in a few words: the action, not the acceptance criteria. "Filtering the documents register by status", "Filling the deviation form with invalid dates", "Signing in as QA_Team" — NOT "§2.4 filtering narrows the set and the filter is reflected in the URL", which is what you are CHECKING, not what you are doing. Naming the item you are on is fine ("§2.4: filtering the documents register"); keep the rest to what a colleague would see over your shoulder. It stays set until you pass a different one, so a batch costs a few words, not one per call. Required on the tools that act unless a journey or an earlier call already set one.
`fixture`	No	Generated fixture kind; default: inferred from the input's accept attribute (pdf when there is none, or none we can generate)
`session`	No	Target this session directly instead of the active one — pass it explicitly when dispatching to MULTIPLE sessions in one turn (e.g. two scout_click calls with different `session`), which then run CONCURRENTLY rather than queueing. Omit for single-session sequential use.
`filePath`	No	A real file to upload — absolute or relative to the project; must be inside the attached project. Exclusive with fixture.
`objective`	No	Old name for `task` (2.0). Prefer `task`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.0Sep 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / objective

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Old name for `task` (2.0). Prefer `task`.",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / task

Added value: +{
+  "description": "What you are DOING right now, in a few words: the action, not the acceptance criteria. \"Filtering the documents register by status\", \"Filling the deviation form with invalid dates\", \"Signing in as QA_Team\" — NOT \"§2.4 filtering narrows the set and the filter is reflected in the URL\", which is what you are CHECKING, not what you are doing. Naming the item you are on is fine (\"§2.4: filtering the documents register\"); keep the rest to what a colleague would see over your shoulder. It stays set until you pass a different one, so a batch costs a few words, not one per call. Required on the tools that act unless a journey or an earlier call already set one.",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "type": "string"
+}

Addedv1.1.0Sep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and succeeds remarkably. It discloses the chooser interception, in-memory fixture generation, project-fencing of `filePath`, accept-violation flagging, warning if the input is cleared, and detection of state-changing requests. This goes far beyond a simple 'uploads a file' summary.

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 long but dense with operationally relevant detail; nearly every clause adds value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then proceeds from ref targeting to fixture/file selection to post-selection behavior. A few parentheticals could be trimmed, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the input-targeting strategy, file source options, validation behavior, state-change detection, and necessary follow-up actions. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result without additional structured metadata.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: `ref` resolution through styled controls, fixture kind inference from the accept attribute, project-fencing semantics for `filePath`, and `name` use for boundary tests. It also explains the result fields tied to these parameters, making parameter behavior concrete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a file to an upload control the way a user does.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope from general file operations by detailing `ref` targeting of file inputs, hidden inputs, and chooser-opening controls. The distinctive behavior of intercepting the chooser makes it unambiguous among sibling tools.

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?

The description gives extensive usage context: when to omit `ref`, how to distinguish fixture-based uploads from `filePath` uploads, and what to do after a selection that fires no state-changing request. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the parameter-level guidance is clear enough for correct invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

scout_upload

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools