Get a specific build upload file by ID to inspect its upload status, asset delivery state, checksums, and file metadata. Use the fields parameter to request only needed data.
GET /v1/buildUploadFiles/{id} (GET /v1/buildUploadFiles/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| fields_buildUploadFiles | No | the fields to include for returned resources of type buildUploadFiles |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the raw route. It does not state authentication requirements, whether the resource is scoped to an app, error behavior for a missing id, or anything else an agent needs to call this safely.
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?
It is short, but the only content is the identical route string duplicated inside parentheses, which is pure waste rather than front-loaded information. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not conciseness.
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 read-by-id endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without any framing: no indication of the resource's role in the build-upload workflow, no relationship to sibling tools, and no notes on the sparse-fieldset parameter's effect on the response.
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 100% with only 2 parameters, so the schema already documents both 'id' and the 'fields_buildUploadFiles' sparse-fieldset selector; per the baseline rule this is a 3. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever beyond what the schema provides.
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 is just the HTTP route 'GET /v1/buildUploadFiles/{id}' repeated twice in parentheses. It names a verb and a resource path, but it is effectively a restatement of the tool name with no explanation of what a buildUploadFile is, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from the many sibling get_instance / get_to_many_related tools.
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 exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as build_upload_files_create_instance, build_upload_files_update_instance, or the collection-level build_uploads_build_upload_files_get_to_many_related. The agent must infer everything from the URL pattern.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.