Doco

Doco Upload Attachment

doco_upload_attachment

Upload image, PDF, text, or Word files to a Doco document, returning an attachment ID and URL. Use the ID in image node attrs.attachmentId to embed attachments in document blocks.

Instructions

上传附件（图片/PDF/文本/Word），返回 attachment_id 与 URL；在文档块中用 image 节点 attrs.attachmentId 引用

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filename`	No	Optional filename to use for the uploaded attachment.
`file_path`	Yes	服务器/本机可访问的文件绝对路径
`document_id`	Yes	附件归属文档 ID
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional key that makes a retried write safe.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds supported file types and return values, but does not disclose potential side effects, retry behavior, or file size limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with the action, supported types, return values, and usage tip. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 an output schema exists and annotations are present, the description covers the essential workflow: upload, get IDs, reference in blocks. It omits edge-case details like file size limits, but those are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds value by enumerating acceptable file types (image/PDF/text/Word) that are not present in the file_path schema description, clarifying the parameter's allowed content.

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 uses a specific verb (上传/upload), names the resource (attachment), lists supported file types, and states the return values (attachment_id, URL) plus the referencing workflow. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools, none of which perform uploads.

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?

It gives clear context: use when you need to attach a file to a document, and it explains how the resulting attachment_id is used in image blocks. It doesn't name exclusions or alternatives, but no direct alternative exists among siblings, so the guidance is adequate.

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