list_upload_requestsList public upload pages feeding a collection, showing each link, status, and how much has arrived so you can track incoming files.
Answers: which upload links do I have out? has anyone sent files through them? Returns each public upload page that feeds a collection, with its link, status and how much has arrived.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 useful payload context (link, status, how much has arrived), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, permissions, or how many results come back for a list-style tool.
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 short sentences with the use-case question front-loaded and the returned fields enumerated second. No filler, though the question framing is slightly indirect compared to a plain verb-first statement.
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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (link, status, arrival amount). It is complete for a zero-parameter read tool, though it omits any note on result volume or scoping.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns each public upload page ('upload link') that feeds a collection, along with link, status, and received amount. This clearly distinguishes it from the singular get_upload_request sibling by scope ('each'), though the distinction is implied rather than named.
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?
The opening questions ('which upload links do I have out? has anyone sent files through them?') imply the use case of auditing outstanding upload requests. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_upload_request for a single request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.