Initiate an audiobook or media upload to Audiobookshelf by sending the required request payload to the API upload endpoint.
Create or act on api upload.
POST /api/upload
Args: body: Request payload. Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent, read-only=false, and destructive=false. The description adds the HTTP method POST and advises schema discovery, but it does not disclose what effects calling the tool has, what an 'act' does, or any success/failure behavior. This level of opacity is not offset by the sparse annotations.
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 description is compact and well-structured: a purpose line, an endpoint line, and a parameter note. There is no redundant content. However, the opening purpose line is vague, so the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than crisp clarity.
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?
The instruction to fetch the schema covers the body parameter, but the description does not explain the resource's purpose, what 'act on' means, or when to select this tool among many siblings. Given the overall ambiguityholly, an agent cannot reliably decide to invoke this tool or understand its high-level effect.
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 coverage is 0% and the single 'body' parameter is a generic object with additionalProperties true. The description labels it as 'Request payload' and tells the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, which provides a useful discovery path but defers all field semantics to runtime inspection.
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 description says 'Create or act on api upload' and gives the endpoint, but the verb phrase is vague and does not specify what an upload is or what acting on it entails. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like create_backups_upload or other create_* tools.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only instruction is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, but that is a prerequisite for understanding the payload, not a selection guideline. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.