Check the status of a file upload operation to Gemini File Search. Returns whether the upload is done and any error details.
Check the status of a file upload operation. Returns whether the upload is done and any error details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_name | Yes | Upload operation resource name, e.g. "fileSearchStores/abc123/upload/operations/op789" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the response content (done status and error details) for a tool with no output schema.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return content. No filler, no redundancy.
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, read-only status check with no output schema, the description covers the essential return shape (done state, error details). It stops short of describing the operation lifecycle (e.g., that the name may expire or how to recover from a failed operation).
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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including a concrete resource-name example. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of a file upload operation.' It is somewhat distinguishable from the generic sibling gemini_get_operation, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with that sibling, leaving the differentiation to inference.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is polled after gemini_upload_to_store or gemini_import_file_to_store, but the description states no when-to-use condition, no polling guidance, and no exclusions relative to gemini_get_operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.