Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

files_save

Destructive

Saves uploaded files to the Aeza API using a key, name, and optional intent, so agents can register stored assets for later use.

Instructions

Save uploaded file POST /files/save

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_save"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond the raw 'POST /files/save' endpoint: it never states what gets overwritten or destroyed on a repeat save, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the key already exists, which is exactly the context a destructive, non-idempotent call needs.

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?

It is short, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency; the 'POST /files/save' line conveys little beyond transport trivia and crowds out any real explanation.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested request body, an unexplained enum, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions leaves the agent without enough information to invoke it safely or correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage for the single nested body object is 0%, so neither 'key', 'name', nor the 'intent' enum values are explained anywhere in the definition. The description contributes no meaning about what these fields control, leaving the agent to guess the semantics of the intent enum.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Save uploaded file" largely restates the tool name (files_save) and adds only the fact that the file is already uploaded. It does not say what saving produces (a record? a copy? a version?) or how it differs from siblings such as files_create_link.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that an upload must precede it), and no mention of any alternative tool or condition for choosing one.

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