datanika-mcp

create_upload

Create an upload job to extract data from a source connection and load it into a destination connection, with optional dlt configuration.

Instructions

Create a new upload (extract + load job).

Write tool: available only when this session was granted write access — the local server's --allow-write flag, or an OAuth consent in which the user approved write. Read-only sessions refuse it.

Args: name: Upload name. source_connection_id: ID of the source connection. destination_connection_id: ID of the destination connection. dlt_config: Optional dlt extraction config (load_mode, table_name, etc.). description: Optional description.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "source_connection_id": "<source_connection_id>",
      "destination_connection_id": "<destination_connection_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`dlt_config`	No
`description`	No
`source_connection_id`	Yes
`destination_connection_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that this is a write operation and will be refused in read-only sessions, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not mention what happens on success (e.g., whether the upload is queued or run immediately), or any other side effects beyond creation.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-line definition, a permission note, and a clean args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information (purpose and write restriction) is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a creation tool with an output schema (which presumably describes the return), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, permissions, and all parameters. The only notable gap is lack of information about the job's lifecycle (e.g., whether it starts immediately or is asynchronous), but this is partly mitigated by the output schema.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this fully by listing each argument with a meaningful explanation: name, source/destination connection IDs, optional dlt config with examples, and optional description. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema types.

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?

The description clearly states 'Create a new upload (extract + load job)' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies what an upload is. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like trigger_upload, though the create vs. trigger distinction is implied by the naming.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides a clear condition for use: it requires write access, and read-only sessions will refuse it. This is a useful usage guideline, but it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like create_pipeline or trigger_upload, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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