Upload or create text or base64 files in a Seafile library by providing a path and file content. Optionally replace existing files and pass credentials for authenticated access.
Upload/create a file (text or base64).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| replace | No | ||
| repo_id | No | ||
| is_base64 | No | ||
| repo_token | No | ||
| library_name | No | ||
| account_token | No | ||
| session_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that content can be text or base64, but it says nothing about replacement semantics, authentication requirements, side effects of overwriting, or what happens when replace=false.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for its core message, though for a nine-parameter tool, additional structured detail would be expected for a top score.
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?
With nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits critical invocation details: replace behavior, token usage, repo_id meaning, and path format. It defines the high-level action but leaves too much for the agent to infer or guess.
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 only adds meaning to content and is_base64 via 'text or base64.' The remaining seven parameters — replace, repo_id, repo_token, library_name, account_token, session_token, and path — receive no added semantic context.
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 uses an explicit verb and resource: 'Upload/create a file,' so an agent knows the operation and target. The parenthetical 'text or base64' clarifies the supported content modesahan. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling update_file, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use upload_file versus update_file, create_directory, or read_file. There are no usage context, exclusions, or prerequisites, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.