Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

files_create_link

Destructive

Creates a presigned URL for uploading a file, so clients can upload directly without sharing API credentials.

Instructions

Create presigned url to upload file POST /files

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "files_create_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (not read-only, destructive, open-world, not idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the output is a presigned URL for uploading rather than a saved file, but it omits expiry, permissions required, and what happens on repeat calls despite non-idempotence being flagged.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very short and front-loaded, but the trailing 'POST /files' endpoint note adds little for an agent choosing or calling the tool. The extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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

Completeness2/5

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

A destructive, non-idempotent mutation taking a nested object parameter, with no output schema and no description of the returned URL or how to use it. For a tool whose entire value is the returned link, the definition leaves too much unspecified.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has one required nested body containing a single 'name' field with 0% description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. It is unclear whether 'name' is a filename, path, or key, or what constraints apply, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: creating a presigned upload URL for a file. An agent can tell this is an upload-link generator rather than a file writer, though it does not relate itself to the sibling files_save, which presumably consumes the link.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus files_save, no mention that this is likely the first step of a two-step upload flow, and no prerequisites (auth, bucket, or ownership) are given. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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