Upload a local image file from the server machine to Image Label for annotation and labeling.
Upload a local image file (path on the machine running this server) to Image Label.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| category | No | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the path is server-local rather than client-local, which matters for invocation, but says nothing about duplicate names, overwrite behavior, permissions, or size limits. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical scoping note earns its place. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but the sentence itself is efficient.
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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers only one parameter's semantics. Missing details about naming, categorization, and re-upload/overwrite behavior leave real gaps, though the output schema covers return values.
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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies only 'path' (local to the server machine) and leaves 'name', 'category', and 'description' entirely unexplained, including whether name defaults to the filename or whether category is free-form.
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 (upload) and resource (local image file) and clarifies the path refers to the machine running the server, which is genuinely useful. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but upload is naturally distinct from list/get/update/annotation 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?
No statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist (e.g., update_image_metadata for existing images). Usage is only inferable from the name and the upload verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.