Skip to main content
Glama
soil-dev

capsulemcp

upload_attachment

Upload a file as a note attachment linked to a party, opportunity, or project. Provide the file as base64-encoded data with filename and content type.

Instructions

Upload a file as a new note attachment, linked to a party, opportunity, or project. Provide the file as base64-encoded dataBase64 along with filename and contentType (MIME). Also provide exactly one of partyId / opportunityId / projectId to anchor the note. Optionally pass content to set the note body (defaults to '[attachment]'). Two-step orchestration server-side: bytes upload → token → note creation. Adding to an existing entry is not supported.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentNoBody text for the note that will hold the attachment. Defaults to '[attachment]' if omitted.
partyIdNoLink the new note to a party (mutually exclusive with opportunityId / projectId).
filenameYesFilename Capsule should record (e.g. 'contract.pdf'). Capsule does NOT validate consistency between filename, contentType, and the actual bytes — a typo in either is accepted and the file is stored as labelled.
projectIdNo
dataBase64YesFile contents, base64-encoded. Decoded server-side and uploaded as the request body. PRACTICAL LIMIT: the base64 must be produced inline as tool-call output, so uploads driven by an LLM are only viable for small files (a few tens of KB) — a 500 KB file is ~660K characters, far beyond a chat model's output budget. Do not attempt to inline large files; tell the user the file is too large to route through the model. The 25 MB maximum (Capsule's documented limit) applies to programmatic MCP clients that construct the call directly; the connector rejects oversized base64 before uploading.
contentTypeYesMIME type of the file (e.g. 'application/pdf', 'image/png', 'text/plain'). Trusted by Capsule verbatim; not cross-checked against `filename` or the actual bytes.
opportunityIdNo
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the two-step orchestration, default note body, Capsule's lack of validation for filename/contentType/bytes consistency, and practical file size limits due to LLM output constraints. This adds significant behavioral context.

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 description is a single paragraph of about four sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 7 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, default behavior, and limitations. It could mention return value explicitly, but the two-step orchestration implies a token/note ID. Satisfies completeness for most use cases.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema: explains the mutual exclusivity of partyId/opportunityId/projectId, details the practical limit for dataBase64, and notes Capsule's leniency on filename/contentType/byte consistency. Schema coverage is 71%, and the description compensates well.

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 tool uploads a file as a new note attachment linked to an entity. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_note' (without attachment) and 'get_attachment' (retrieval).

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 explains when to use (uploading a file as attachment) and explicitly states what is not supported ('Adding to an existing entry is not supported'). It lacks explicit comparison to alternative tools but provides clear context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/soil-dev/capsulemcp'

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