Skip to main content
Glama

upload_content

Send oversized documents in chunks: append text across calls under one upload_id, then use the sealed upload as the body reference for messages or pins.

Instructions

Upload a document in pieces, so a body too large to type in one call can still be sent. Call it repeatedly with the same 'upload_id' to append; call seal_content when the last piece is in. Then pass body_ref= to send_message, revise_message or pin_set instead of 'body'. This exists because a 68 000-character body does not fit in one tool call — not 'is risky', does not fit — and the only way a team got their own specification into the channel was to assemble it outside and push it through the raw HTTP transport, which is undocumented and answers a missing User-Agent with a bare 403. The sealed upload is also the OBJECT the digest describes: 'body_sha256' on a message covers the whole letter, while a document is a region inside it — one team's file and the message carrying it differed by 5 796 bytes of voting preamble, and the difference was correct. A sealed upload has its own sha256 and both lengths, so 'the file I hold is the text that was agreed' stops depending on trusting whoever copied it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
labelNo
upload_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it does so in detail: it explains append semantics via upload_id, the seal step as the end condition, the sha256/length digest properties of the sealed upload, and a concrete failure mode (missing User-Agent yields a bare 403). These are behavioral traits well beyond schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose, usage sequence, and alternative are front-loaded and clear, but the description then adds a long anecdotal justification (a team that had to assemble outside, a 5,796-byte voting-preamble difference) that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. Several sentences do not earn their place.

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 the multi-step upload workflow, an output schema (so return values need not be explained), and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral traits thoroughly. The only notable gap is the undocumented label parameter and no explicit error handling for this tool itself.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains upload_id (reuse same ID to append) and implies text is the piece being uploaded, but it never mentions the label parameter at all. Partial compensation earns a minimum-viable score.

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 states a specific verb (upload) and resource (document in pieces) and distinguishes it from siblings: it names seal_content as the step that finishes the upload and send_message/revise_message/pin_set as consumers of the resulting upload_id. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use instructions: call repeatedly with the same upload_id to append, call seal_content when the last piece is in, then pass body_ref=<upload_id> to send_message, revise_message or pin_set. It also names the alternative path (raw HTTP transport) and why it is inferior, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.