verify_yandex_uploadCheck that a Yandex Disk upload matches expected file paths, sizes, and checksums to confirm success without re-uploading.
Rechecks every expected path, size and comparable checksum without uploading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| schema_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing what is verified (path, size, comparable checksum) and explicitly saying no upload occurs. This aligns with the annotations and does not contradict them.
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?
The description is one concise, front-loaded sentence. It starts with the action verb and immediately communicates the object and the non-uploading behavior, with no filler or redundant material.
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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is largely complete. The main missing piece is clarification of where job_id comes from and that this should be run after an upload or execution step, but the output schema covers return value expectations.
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 0%, and the description does not explain what job_id represents or how it relates to the verification. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool definition leaves the semantics entirely to the developer.
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 explicitly states a specific verb and resource: 'Rechecks every expected path, size and comparable checksum.' It distinguishes the tool from sibling upload/export/status tools by emphasizing that it is a verification action and does not upload.
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 description implies when to use this tool: after files are expected to be uploaded, to recheck path, size, and checksum. However, it does not explicitly outline when not to use it or name sibling alternatives such as get_export_status or retry_failed_items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.