Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tool-mcp-server

tool-mcp-server

by maple-awa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

tool_file

Accepts base64-encoded file payloads with filename and MIME type, enabling file inputs for various MCP tools and workflows.

Instructions

[basic] File

Parameters:

  • file (bytes): File

Tool call template

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": "tool_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoFile (base64 file payload)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It merely labels the parameter as 'File' and makes no mention of behavior, side effects, return value, or required permissions, offering no behavioral insight at all.

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 description is under-specified to the point of being vacuous rather than concise. It contains no actionable information and lacks any meaningful structure that would help an agent understand the tool. This is absence of content, not conciseness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With one nested parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the full burden falls on the description to explain the tool's purpose and usage. The description provides nothing about functionality, when to use it, or expected outcomes, making it completely inadequate for agent invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for the nested file object (base64, filename, mimeType) with 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning beyond echoing the word 'File', but it does not obscure the schema's clarity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description simply states '[basic] File' and repeats the parameter name/type, without indicating any action, operation, or resource manipulation. It is a tautology that restates the tool name without clarifying its purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools like tool_file_to_base64, tool_file_to_string, or tool_string_to_file. The description neither states a use case nor excludes alternatives, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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