Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
seo-factory-mcp

seo-factory-mcp

by skiddgoddamn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

upload_image

Upload an image file (up to 10 MB) to generate a URL, then insert ![](url) as the first line of the article body to set it as the cover image.

Instructions

Загрузить картинку статьи (POST /api/media/article-image, multipart): jpg/png/webp/gif/avif/svg, ≤10 МБ. Возвращает {url}. Вставь «» ПЕРВОЙ строкой тела — станет обложкой и переживёт будущие PUT (см. готчу update_article).

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "upload_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteNo
filePathYesПуть к локальному файлу картинки (поддерживается ~)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: endpoint, multipart upload, format constraints, size limit, return value, and cover insertion procedure. Missing details like authentication or rate limits, but adequate for basic use.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and includes all critical information without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers most relevant aspects: endpoint, constraints, return, and integration note. The optional 'site' parameter is left unaddressed, but overall it's sufficiently complete for this tool's complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has 50% coverage (only filePath described). The description adds meaning: multipart context, allowed formats, size, and cover instruction—compensating for the schema gap. The 'site' parameter remains unexplained, but overall adds value.

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 description clearly states the action 'upload article image' with the endpoint, allowed formats, and size limit. It distinguishes itself by referencing a gotcha with update_article, indicating integration context.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear instructions on usage, including how to make the image the cover and the gotcha about update_article. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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