Query an existing image upload operation by operation_id to check status or recover upload credentials without re-uploading images or requesting a new upload key.
仅查询原图片上传凭据操作。保留已上传对象和同一笔记 client_request_id；保存遇限流不要重新上传。凭据敏感，不得放进聊天、日志或命令参数。任务 pending/processing 不等于完成。恢复仅查询原 operation_id，不能自动申请新 key。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes | 可选的原上传操作标识；恢复时必须复用。仅服务器协商支持时可用，不支持时明确失败。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it declares the operation is lookup-only, discloses that credentials are sensitive and must not appear in chat, logs, or command arguments, and clarifies that pending/processing does not mean success. It omits what a failed or unsupported query returns, but the safety and lifecycle disclosures go well beyond the bare name.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by tightly packed operational rules with no filler sentences. Each clause (object preservation, rate-limit behavior, credential sensitivity, state semantics, recovery constraint) earns its place.
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 one-parameter read-style tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, recovery preconditions, safety handling of credentials, and status semantics. The main remaining gap is what a successful or unsupported query actually returns, which the agent must infer.
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 operation_id parameter is already fully documented, including the reuse-on-recovery rule and the server-negotiation caveat. The description reinforces that recovery must reuse the original operation_id but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
"仅查询原图片上传凭据操作" names a specific verb (query-only) and a specific resource (the original image upload credential operation), and "仅查询" plus "不能自动申请新 key" functionally separates it from token-issuing siblings like get_upload_token or get_knowledge_file_upload_operation. It stops short of naming any sibling by name, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.
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?
It states the positive case (recover by querying the original operation_id only), the negative case (do not re-upload when saving hits a rate limit, do not auto-request a new key), and the state rule (pending/processing is not completion). An agent has enough to decide between reusing this tool and starting a fresh upload.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.