Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Gumloop MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Upload file

upload_file
Destructive

Uploads a local or base64-encoded file to Gumloop, associating it with a user or project, and requires explicit confirmation.

Instructions

Upload file 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
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.
user_idNoThe user ID associated with the file. Required if project_id is not provided.
file_nameNoThe name of the file to be uploaded.
file_pathNoRegular local file path, no symlink, at most 3 MiB. Encoded as native base64 file_content; cannot mix with file_content or payload routes.
project_idNoThe project ID associated with the file. Required if user_id is not provided.
file_contentNoBase64 encoded content of the file.
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.

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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, readOnly=false, and the description goes beyond them by stating that confirmation is mandatory, that runs can spend credits or trigger downstream effects, and that unknown outcomes must not be resubmitted. These caveats meaningfully inform retry and safety behavior. It still omits the multi-route input handling and size limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 body is two tight sentences with no filler, and the critical constraint is front-loaded. The redundant 'Upload file' first line adds little, but the rest is efficient and well ordered.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter tool with nested objects and three alternative input routes and no output schema, the description covers the confirmation/credits safety context adequately but is silent on the input-route complexity that dominates correct invocation. It is minimally complete rather than fully complete.

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% and each parameter, including the mutually exclusive file_path/file_content/payload routes, is documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Upload file', which simply restates the tool name and title verbatim, so it does not independently convey purpose. It never distinguishes this single-file upload from close siblings like upload_files, upload_session_file, or upload_brain_files. The only added content is operational caution, not a clearer statement of what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives real usage guidance: explicit confirmation is required, the operation can spend credits or trigger downstream actions, and unknown outcomes must not be auto-resubmitted. However, it offers no when-to-use versus alternatives, and with upload_files and several scoped upload tools present, the agent gets no help choosing among them.

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