Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aktar

Aktar

Official
by getaktar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Upload a file

upload_file
Idempotent

Upload a local file to your own S3, R2, or B2 storage and get a shareable public link, with optional short or expiring links.

Instructions

Upload a local file to the user's storage and return its link (plus Markdown and HTML). The file becomes reachable by anyone with the link. If the same file is already there, Aktar returns its existing link (reused: true).

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "upload_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoUpload under this name instead of the file's own (its extension is kept if this has none).
pathYesPath of the file to upload, absolute or relative to the server's working directory. It must be inside the folders the server may upload from (--root, or its working directory), and secrets (SSH keys, credentials, .env files, private keys) are never uploaded.
shortNotrue makes a short link with the destination's link shortener (even if its rules would skip this one), false makes none. Leave out to let the destination's setting decide.
folderNoKeep the file name and put it in this folder of the bucket, instead of the destination's path template.
expiresNoDelete after this many days (needs Aktar's auto-delete rules on the destination). 0 or left out keeps the file.
destinationNoDestination name or ID from list_destinations. Leave out to let Aktar choose.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description goes beyond them by warning that "The file becomes reachable by anyone with the link" and by explaining the reuse mechanism ("returns its existing link (reused: true)"). It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior for rejected paths, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the visibility consequence, and the dedupe behavior. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler.

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 six-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (link, Markdown, HTML) and the public-exposure and reuse semantics, which the schema does not cover. It is nearly complete, with only auth/prerequisite and error-handling context missing.

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 every one of the six parameters is already documented in the schema, including the root restriction, secrets exclusion, short-link rules, and expiry enum. The description adds essentially no parameter-level syntax or semantics beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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 ("Upload a local file to the user's storage") and also tells the agent what comes back (link plus Markdown and HTML). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like upload_clipboard or create_short_link, so the agent gets no explicit routing signal.

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 implies the use case (upload a file that exists on disk) and explains the dedupe outcome via "reused: true", which guides the agent on repeat calls. It does not say when to prefer this over upload_clipboard, create_short_link, or create_temporary_link, so usage is only implied rather than spelled out.

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