Upload base64-encoded image, audio, or video data (decoded limit 10 MiB) and get media URLs; use existing public URLs for larger files, since local paths are not accepted.
Upload base64 image/audio/video data (default decoded limit 10 MiB). Returns media URLs. Prefer existing public URLs for large files; local paths are not accepted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ~10 MiB decoded size limit, accepted input form (base64), the rejection of local file paths, and what is returned (media URLs). It omits auth requirements and whether uploads expire or are scoped, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by the constraint. Nothing redundant or padded.
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?
Output schema exists, yet the description still usefully names the return (media URLs). Size limit and input restrictions are covered; only the data_url format detail and any lifetime/permission notes are missing for a one-parameter upload tool.
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 coverage for the single parameter is 0%, so the description must compensate. Saying 'base64 ... data' plus 'local paths are not accepted' implies data_url must be a base64 data URL, but the exact string format (data: URI prefix, MIME handling) is never stated.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Upload base64 image/audio/video data' and what it produces ('Returns media URLs'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from generation siblings (generate_image, synthesize_speech) by being an ingest operation, but never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.
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?
Gives concrete routing guidance: prefer existing public URLs for large files, and local paths are not accepted. It does not say when an agent should call this versus just passing a URL to edit_image/edit_video, so a little inference is left.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.