Generate an upload URL for a file in MYBOX by providing its name and size, with options to resume, overwrite, or choose a parent folder.
파일 업로드 URL 생성
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | 이어올리기 시작점 | |
| resume | No | 이어올리기 여부 | |
| fileName | Yes | 업로드 할 파일 이름 (확장자 포함) | |
| fileSize | Yes | 업로드할 파일 크기(byte) | |
| parentId | No | 파일을 업로드할 폴더 ID(생략 시 루트) | |
| isOverwrite | No | 동일 이름 존재 시 덮어쓰기 여부 | |
| modifiedTime | No | 파일 수정일시 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails it. It does not disclose whether the returned URL expires, whether calling this alone creates a file record, what permissions are required, or how isOverwrite/resume interact with existing files.
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 single phrase is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. Nothing is redundant, yet nothing beyond the tool name is conveyed.
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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: how the generated URL is used, its lifetime, and how resume/offset semantics change the call. The schema covers the field meanings, but the overall workflow context is missing.
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 100%, so all seven parameters already carry Korean descriptions of their own (offset, resume, fileName, fileSize, parentId, isOverwrite, modifiedTime). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 phrase '파일 업로드 URL 생성' names a specific action and resource (generate a file-upload URL), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it gives no hint of scope, required identifiers, or how it differs from siblings like files_download, files_copy, or files_move, so an agent cannot disambiguate from the text alone.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description does not say whether this is the mandatory first step before an actual upload, nor when resume/offset mode applies versus a fresh upload.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.