upload_imageUpload a local image (JPEG, PNG, WebP, TIFF, JXL up to 15 MB) to Adobe Firefly Services and get an uploadId valid for seven days for generation or editing.
Upload a local JPEG, PNG, WebP, TIFF or JXL image, up to 15 MB. Returns an uploadId, valid for seven days. File content is sent to Adobe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | Local image path on the computer running this server. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent profile, so the description needn't restate safety. It adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the 15 MB ceiling, the accepted formats, that the returned uploadId expires after seven days, and that file content leaves the system to Adobe — a privacy-relevant disclosure not present in any structured field.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. Constraints (formats, size) come first, then the outcome and expiry, then the external-transmission caveat — front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully covers the return value and its seven-day lifetime, plus size/format limits and the external data flow. What's missing is any tie-in to how the uploadId is consumed by sibling tools, which would complete the picture for a single-param upload tool.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents filePath as a local path. The description's format and size constraints apply to the file but add no syntax or path-resolution detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is correct.
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?
States a specific verb (Upload) and resource (local image), enumerates accepted formats and the 15 MB cap, and names the return value (uploadId). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like generate_image or upscale_image without opening the schema.
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?
The description implies the upload produces a reference image usable downstream, but never states when to use it versus the generative siblings or that the returned uploadId is the input to them. Usage is inferable from context only, which matches the 'implied usage' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.