Skip to main content
Glama

upload_dataset_file_from_url

Destructive

Add an image, video, or caption file to a RunComfy dataset by fetching it from a public HTTPS URL. Supports same-name overwrite; use for files under 150 MB.

Instructions

Add one file to a dataset by fetching it from a public URL.

Downloads ``source_url`` and forwards the bytes to
``POST /prod/v1/trainers/datasets/{dataset_id}/upload``.

Args:
    dataset_id: Target dataset.
    source_url: Publicly reachable HTTPS URL for an image, video, or
        caption ``.txt`` file. Must be under 150 MB.
    filename: Name to store it under. Defaults to the URL's
        basename. For LoRA training each image/video needs a caption
        ``.txt`` with the *same base name* — ``img_0001.jpg`` pairs
        with ``img_0001.txt``.

Re-uploading the same filename overwrites the previous copy. For
files the caller holds locally, or anything over 150 MB, use
``get_dataset_upload_urls`` and PUT the bytes directly instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameNo
dataset_idYes
source_urlYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations mark the operation as destructive and read-write, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail: 'Re-uploading the same filename overwrites the previous copy.' It also discloses that the tool downloads the source URL and forwards the bytes to an upload endpoint, which is useful beyond what the annotations provide.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a structured Args block and a short caveat about alternatives. Every sentence contributes necessary information such as endpoint, parameters, constraints, overwrite behavior, and fallback routing, with no fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a three-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description covers all invocation-relevant context: target dataset, source URL, filename semantics, size limit, overwrite hazard, and the alternative tool. The response body is not specified, but that is not essential for correctly calling the tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description's Args section fully compensates. It explains `dataset_id` as the target, `source_url` with format and size constraints, and `filename` with default basename behavior and LoRA caption-pairing semantics. This adds meaning the raw schema cannot.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The opening sentence states a specific action: 'Add one file to a dataset by fetching it from a public URL,' with a clear verb, resource, and method. The description also names the sibling alternative `get_dataset_upload_urls` at the end, making it distinguishable from other dataset upload tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: for publicly reachable URLs under 150 MB. It also provides the counter-case, saying that for locally held files or anything over 150 MB, one should use `get_dataset_upload_urls` and PUT the bytes directly instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/runcomfy-com/runcomfy-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server