get_upload_requestFetch an upload request's details to see who uploaded, when, and how much, including each uploader's name, email, and note.
Answers: who has uploaded through this link, when, and how much? Returns the request and its submissions, newest first, with the name, email and note each uploader typed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Upload request id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results are returned newest first and include the name, email, and note typed by each uploader.
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 compact and front-loads the key use case with a direct question, then answers it in one clear sentence. It is efficient, though the question-and-answer structure is slightly stylistic.
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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains the returned content: the request and its submissions, ordered newest first, with uploader details. It does not cover pagination or response structure, but it is sufficient for a simple single-id read 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any further meaning about the id format or constraints, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states what the tool returns: a specific upload request and its submissions, including uploader details and timestamps. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_upload_requests.
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?
Usage is implied by the question it answers and the required id, making it clear this is for inspecting a single upload request's submissions. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives such as list_upload_requests.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.