Upload a document to Alfresco using a file path or base64 content, targeting a parent folder and adding an optional description.
Upload a document to Alfresco.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | No | ||
| parent_id | No | -shared- | |
| description | No | ||
| base64_content | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / base64_content / titleRemoved value: -"Base64 Content"Input schema / properties / description / titleRemoved value: -"Description"Input schema / properties / file_path / titleRemoved value: -"File Path"Input schema / properties / parent_id / titleRemoved value: -"Parent Id"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"_WrappedResult"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Upload a document' without explaining what happens on upload (e.g., whether it creates a new node, overwrites existing content, requires authentication, or handles versioning). The presence of both file_path and base64_content suggests two possible upload modes, but the description does not clarify their behavior or precedence.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified: it earns its place but does not provide enough information to be useful. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices substance for brevity.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to provide the document content (file_path vs base64_content), what the parent_id default means, or what the output schema contains. The sibling tools suggest a rich repository context, but this description does not help the agent understand the upload workflow.
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%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters, but it does not. The description mentions 'document' but does not explain the meaning of file_path, parent_id, description, or base64_content. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema, and the default values (e.g., '-shared-') are not explained.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Upload a document to Alfresco'), which is clear at a basic level. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like create_folder or checkin_document, and it doesn't specify what kind of document or how the upload is performed. It is minimally clear but lacks differentiation.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a parent folder, using base64_content vs file_path), nor does it exclude cases like updating existing documents or checking in content. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.