Create a short-lived, one-time HTTP upload session for binary files, enabling secure uploads with required filename, content type, size, and SHA-256 checksum.
Create a short-lived one-time HTTP upload session for a binary file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sha256 | Yes | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| size_bytes | Yes | ||
| content_type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations beyond the title, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the session is short-lived and one-time, which is a meaningful behavioral trait, but it does not mention side effects, expiration details, or that this is a write operation. The description gives some transparency but omits important operational context.
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 description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key attributes. Every word is essential, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's role in an upload flow (with siblings like upload_status and download_create) and the 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the expected workflow (e.g., after creating the session, how to use the returned URL, or that upload_status should be called afterward). It also lacks details on file size limits or the purpose of sha256, leaving a significant gap for an agent to call it correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter details. It does not explain what sha256, size_bytes, or content_type are used for, nor how they should be formatted. The description adds zero value beyond the schema field titles, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of these required inputs.
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 states a specific action ('Create') on a specific resource ('short-lived one-time HTTP upload session') with the key qualifiers (short-lived, one-time, binary file). It is distinct from the sibling upload_status and download_create tools, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 description implies the tool is for initiating an upload session but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like gateway_file_upload_status or gateway_file_download_create. It does not mention any prerequisites, sequencing, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.