Upload a local file to your personal assets store for blog posts or articles, returning a public URL for direct use.
Upload a local file to your personal assets store (for blog posts, articles, etc.) and return the public URL
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pathname | No | Optional storage path/filename in the blob store (e.g. 'images/photo.jpg'). Defaults to the original filename. | |
| localPath | Yes | Absolute path to the local file to upload |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutating upload action and the public-URL result, which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens on path collisions, overwrite behavior, size limits, or any other side effects beyond the basic upload.
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 conveys the action, destination, use case, and return value without waste. Every element serves a purpose and the structure is easy to scan.
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 simple upload tool, the description covers the core invocation details: what to provide (localPath), where the file goes, and what is returned. The lack of overwrite or conflict semantics is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation and the schema coverage.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description need not repeat their semantics. It adds little beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters clearly.
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 clearly identifies the action ('Upload a local file'), the target resource ('your personal assets store'), and the key outcome ('return the public URL'). This distinguishes it from the sibling list/head/delete/copy tools by verb and purpose.
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?
It provides clear usage context: uploading local files for blog posts, articles, and similar personal-asset needs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling names make the distinction obvious and the context is sufficient for an agent to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.