CloudDesk MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cloud_upload

Initiates uploading files from a local source to a remote folder inside a selected cloud storage volume and returns a job identifier for tracking its progress.

Instructions

Inicia una subida y devuelve un job. Sigue su progreso con cloud_jobs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "volume": "<volume>",
      "local": "<local>",
      "remote": "<remote>"
    },
    "name": "cloud_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`local`	Yes
`remote`	Yes
`volume`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful asynchronous behavior: it returns a job and progress must be tracked separately with cloud_jobs. It does not cover auth needs, side effects, or what happens on failure, but with annotations doing the safety heavy lifting, this is adequate.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, followed by the essential follow-up tool. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with three required, undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It should at least explain what volume, local, and remote represent, and it provides no error handling or prerequisite context, leaving the agent under-informed to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and all three required parameters (volume, local, remote) are completely undocumented. The description says nothing about what these parameters mean or how they should be specified, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance for a fully undocumented schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Inicia una subida' (starts an upload) and says it returns a job. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling o2_upload, which is also an upload tool, leaving ambiguity about when this cloud_ variant should be chosen.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description only says to track progress with cloud_jobs; it gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to the many sibling tools (e.g., o2_upload, cloud_copy). Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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