Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Gumloop MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Create source

create_brain_source
Destructive

Create a file-upload source for Gumloop Brain and set whether uploads index immediately or wait for approval before indexing.

Instructions

Create a file-upload source. Only direct_file_uploads sources can be created through the API; connected sources such as Notion or Google Drive are set up in the Gumloop app because they need an account connection.

By default the source is active and indexes (and bills) each file as soon as it is uploaded. Set require_approval to true to create it as a draft instead: uploads then run a credit estimate, the source owner is notified, and nothing is indexed until Approve source is called. Explicit confirmation is required for this exact account operation. Runs can spend credits or trigger downstream actions; never resubmit unknown outcomes automatically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoDisplay name of the source.
scopeNoWhich Brain the source belongs to. `team` requires `team_id`.personal
accountNoNamed private Gumloop account; selects private credentials and user/team identity.
confirmNoSet true only when the user asked for exactly this action.
payloadNoComplete JSON request body instead of body flags. Preserves current endpoint fields and values.
team_idNoThe team for `scope: team`. Not accepted with other scopes.
source_typeNoOnly `direct_file_uploads` is accepted.direct_file_uploads
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
require_approvalNoCreate as a draft that estimates credits before anything is indexed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Must be true for this exact requested account change, agent/flow execution, upload or deletion."New value: +"Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action."
  2. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations mark this as destructive and non-idempotent; the description adds substantive context beyond that: the default `active` state indexes AND bills per file, while `require_approval: true` creates a `draft`, triggers a credit estimate, notifies the owner, and defers indexing until approval. It also warns about irreversible spend. It does not state permissions/account-auth prerequisites in depth, but the behavioral disclosure is strong.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core scope restriction and the default-vs-draft behavior, in three tight paragraphs. It is slightly longer than needed for a create tool, and the final confirmation paragraph sits after the behavioral detail rather than at the front.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent creation tool with 9 parameters (0 required) and no output schema, the description covers what gets created, the default state, the draft/approval path, and the confirmation requirement. It omits nothing critical for correct invocation, though return/estimate details for the approval flow are only implied.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including the enum on `scope` and the `team_id` constraint. The description reinforces the `require_approval` semantics and the `direct_file_uploads` restriction, but adds little syntax/format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a file-upload source') and immediately scopes the creation to `direct_file_uploads`, distinguishing it from connected sources like Notion or Google Drive. This differentiates it from the sibling tools (e.g. `list_brain_sources`, `upload_brain_files`).

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 clearly says only `direct_file_uploads` can be created through the API, and connected sources must be set up in the Gumloop app — an explicit 'when-not' condition. It also explains the `require_approval` branch. However, it does not point to a specific sibling alternative for those connected sources.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools