Uploads a file to a specified Concrete CMS folder by accepting binary file data and a folder ID.
Adds a file object.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "add-file"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | ||
| folder | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0-alpha.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context whatsoever: no permission requirements, no note on whether an existing file is replaced, no size/type limits, no statement about the response. With a destructive write and zero annotation-supplementing text, the description carries none of its share.
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 single sentence is short but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. It is front-loaded with nothing useful for the caller.
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?
For a destructive multipart file-upload mutation with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no required-parameter clarification, the description is wholly inadequate. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is present.
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% and the description never mentions either parameter. The distinction between the binary "file" payload and the integer "folder" target (and whether folder is optional, since no parameters are required) is left completely unexplained beyond bare schema titles.
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?
"Adds a file object" restates the tool name and title almost verbatim: verb "adds" plus resource "file." It gives no indication of what adding a file entails (upload binary content, attach to a folder, overwrite behavior) and offers nothing to distinguish it from siblings such as update-file-by-id or move-file-to-location.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. An agent must infer entirely on its own that this is the creation path versus update-file-by-id or move-file-to-location.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.