Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Egnyte Large File Manager

Egnyte Large File Manager

by hschickdevs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Egnyte: upload local file

egnyte_upload

Upload a local file to Egnyte with automatic chunked upload for files over 100 MB. Returns group id and checksum.

Instructions

Upload a local file to Egnyte. Automatically uses chunked upload for large files (>= ~100 MB). Returns the new entry/group id and checksum.

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": {
      "local_path": "<local_path>",
      "egnyte_path": "<egnyte_path>"
    },
    "name": "egnyte_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
local_pathYesAbsolute path of the local file to upload
egnyte_pathYesDestination Egnyte path, e.g. /Shared/Docs/out.xlsx
chunk_sizeNoOverride chunk size in bytes (clamped to 10MB–1GB)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Adds behavior beyond annotations: automatic chunked upload for large files and return values (entry/group id and checksum). But does not disclose potential side effects despite openWorldHint=true, such as overwrite behavior or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential details (chunking, return values). No wasted words.

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?

Given only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., login state) and what happens on conflict or failure. Still, it meets the needs for a focused upload tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description enhances meaning by linking chunk_size to the auto-chunking behavior and specifying that local_path must be absolute. This adds value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (upload a local file), the target (Egnyte), and contrasts with sibling tools like download, stat, login, logout. It is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., login required), or conditions for avoidance. The description only states the function, not the context.

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