Upload file(s) via multipart/form-data to stage them on the server for subsequent processing.
Upload file(s) via multipart/form-data and stage them on the server.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "postFileUpload"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It reveals the operation is a write/mutation but fails to disclose side effects like file size limits, staging duration, or whether the operation is reversible. No details on authentication or rate limits.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured to include key details without becoming verbose.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits return behavior (e.g., file reference, success code) and does not clarify the 'stage' concept or whether multiple uploads are supported.
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%, so the description must explain the 'filename' parameter. It does not: it uses 'file(s)' implying multiple but schema has a single field. No format, constraints, or usage details are provided.
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 clearly states the action ('Upload'), resource ('file(s)'), method ('multipart/form-data'), and outcome ('stage them on the server'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling 'postFileProcess' (which likely processes files) by focusing on uploading and staging.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about when not to use it. Sibling tools like postFileProcess suggest further processing, but no comparative guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.