Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ragflow-kb-mcp

ragflow-kb-mcp

by feci
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

ragflow_upload_attachment

Stores a file as a runtime attachment for chat or agent conversations without joining any dataset. Upload from a URL, text, base64 content, or a server file path.

Instructions

Store a file as a runtime attachment for chat or agent conversations; it joins no dataset.

Tool call template

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": "ragflow_upload_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNohttp(s) URL that RAGFlow downloads instead
textNoUTF-8 text content
filenameNoFile name; required for text and content_base64
file_pathNoPath on the MCP server host, inside an allowed upload root
content_base64NoFile bytes as base64 (small files only)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write, so the description's main added value is the 'runtime' framing, implying the attachment is conversation-scoped rather than persisted into a dataset. It doesn't say whether attachments expire with the session, whether they are retrievable later via ragflow_download_agent_attachment, or what limits apply.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, leading with the action and the key scoping fact. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With zero required parameters and four mutually exclusive content sources, an agent needs to know that exactly one source must be supplied and how filename pairs with text/base64 — the description is silent on this. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, which keeps the gap from being larger.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the five source parameters is already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about how the parameters relate — notably that url/text/file_path/content_base64 are alternative sources and that filename is required alongside text and content_base64.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Store a file as a runtime attachment') and scopes it to chat/agent conversations, which separates it from the dataset-oriented siblings like ragflow_upload_file and ragflow_upload_document. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from ragflow_upload_agent_file, a close sibling covering agent file handling.

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 clause 'it joins no dataset' implicitly tells the agent to prefer this over dataset upload tools when the file is for conversation use, but the guidance is implied rather than explicit. There is no statement about when to prefer ragflow_upload_agent_file, nor any precondition about needing an active chat/agent session.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools