upload_imageUploads a local PNG, JPEG, or GIF (up to 10MB) to note and returns a URL for embedding it in article body. Usually handled automatically by draft creation.
ローカルの画像（PNG / JPEG / GIF、10MB まで）を note にアップロードし、本文に埋め込める URL を返す。通常は create_draft が自動で行うので、単体で使う必要はあまりない。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | 画像ファイルのパス。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real behavioral context: accepted MIME types, the 10MB limit, and that the output is an embeddable URL. It does not mention auth requirements or what happens on oversized/unsupported files, so it falls just 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 tight sentences, with the core purpose and constraints front-loaded and the routing guidance following immediately. No redundant filler.
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 single-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, constraints, return value (embeddable URL), and when not to use it. Everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present.
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% and the single 'path' parameter is documented there. The description's 'ローカルの画像' clarifies the path refers to a local file, adding minor value, but the format/size constraints are resource-level rather than parameter-level, so this stays at baseline.
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 a local image to note) plus accepted formats and size cap, and clarifies it returns an embeddable URL. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like create_draft, which it names.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent that create_draft normally performs this automatically and that standalone use is rarely needed — a direct when-not-to-use statement naming the alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.