Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CVAT MCP

CVAT MCP

by jangjs1216
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

cvat_attach_task_data

Attach local, server, or remote files as media to a CVAT task, with options for image quality, frame range, and more.

Instructions

Attach local, server, or remote media to a task using POST /api/tasks/{id}/data/ with CVAT upload headers.

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>"
    },
    "name": "cvat_attach_task_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskIdYes
clientFilesNoLocal workspace file paths to upload as client_files.
serverFilesNoFiles already available in the CVAT server share.
remoteFilesNoRemote URLs for CVAT to fetch.
optionsNoAdditional DataRequest fields such as image_quality, sorting_method, use_cache, chunk_size, start_frame, stop_frame.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions the HTTP method and headers but does not disclose authentication needs, error handling, data size limits, or side effects like overwriting existing data.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the key action and uses no filler. Every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Lacks context about return values, common use patterns, or error scenarios. With nested params and no output schema, more guidance is needed for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 80% (4 of 5 params have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; options field is vaguely described as 'additional DataRequest fields' without elaboration. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (attach), the resource (media to a task), and the endpoint (POST /api/tasks/{id}/data/). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cvat_create_task or cvat_get_task by specifying the attaching data function.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., after creating a task, for local vs. server files). No prerequisites or exclusions provided.

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