Skip to main content
Glama
mikimatsub

swsd-mcp

by mikimatsub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

swsd_upload_attachment

Upload attachments to SWSD records: incidents, problems, changes, releases, solutions, assets, and configuration items. Accepts base64 content for HTTP clients or file path for stdio transport.

Instructions

Upload an attachment to a SWSD incident, problem, change, release, solution, hardware asset, other asset, or configuration item. Use content_base64 for hosted/HTTP clients; file_path is allowed only on stdio. WRITE — honors SWSD_WRITE_MODE.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_nameYesFile name to show in SWSD (maximum 255 characters).
file_pathNoLocal filesystem path. Allowed only when SWSD_TRANSPORT=stdio.
parent_idYesSWSD parent record id.
parent_typeYesSWSD parent object type.
content_base64NoBase64-encoded file contents. Use this for HTTP transport.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.3.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / content_base64 / maxLength
      Added value: +34952536
    • changedInput schema / properties / file_name / description
      Previous value: -"File name to show in SWSD."New value: +"File name to show in SWSD (maximum 255 characters)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / file_name / maxLength
      Added value: +255
    • addedInput schema / properties / file_path / maxLength
      Added value: +4096
  2. Addedv2.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two behavioral constraints: transport-dependent parameter selection and the SWSD_WRITE_MODE gate that can block the write. readOnlyHint=false is consistent with the explicit 'WRITE' marker, and destructiveHint=false matches the additive nature of an upload. No contradiction.

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?

Three short sentences (~50 words), each earning its place: purpose and scope, parameter selection rule, and write-mode gating. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing duplicates the schema's field descriptions.

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?

For a 5-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and safety-relevant annotations, the description covers purpose, record-type scope, parameter choice, and the write gate. The only gap is undisclosed success/failure or response behavior, but no output schema exists and the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds selection semantics the per-field schema leaves inferential: content_base64 and file_path form a mutually exclusive either/or choice determined by transport, which the description resolves explicitly for the agent.

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?

States a specific verb ('Upload') with a clear resource ('attachment') and enumerates the full scope of supported target record types (incident, problem, change, release, solution, hardware asset, other asset, configuration item). None of the 34 sibling tools perform uploads, so this tool is immediately distinguishable 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit invocation context: content_base64 is for hosted/HTTP clients, file_path is allowed only on stdio transport, and the operation honors SWSD_WRITE_MODE. There is no sibling upload tool to route between, so tool-vs-alternative guidance is unnecessary; the transport selection rules are actionable and precise.

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

Install Server

Other Tools