Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm
by thenavidm

Direct Upload

create_upload_url_file
Destructive

Generate a signed upload URL for Shotstack ingest, then PUT your video or binary file to that URL to upload it. Requires confirmation.

Instructions

Request a signed URL to upload a file to. The response returns a signed URL that you use to upload the file to. The signed URL looks similar to:

[temporary signed credential URL omitted]

In a separate API call, use this signed URL to send a PUT request with the binary file. Using cURL you can use a command like:

curl -X PUT -T video.mp4 {data.attributes.url}

Where video.mp4 is the file you want to upload and {data.attributes.url} is the signed URL returned in the response. The request must be a PUT type.

The SDK does not currently support the PUT request. You can use the SDK to make the request for the signed URL and then use cURL to make the PUT request.

Base URL: https://api.shotstack.io/ingest/{version} Explicit confirmation is required for this exact action; provider charges, hosting, sharing or deletion may apply. Never automatically resubmit unknown outcomes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoNamed private Shotstack account; selects private credentials and stage/v1 environment.
confirmNoMust be true for this exact requested render, generation, mutation, upload URL or deletion.
secret_result_fileYesNew absolute JSON file in a private owner-only directory. Signed upload URL stays out of model output; no overwrite.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already flagging destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, the description adds real context: explicit confirmation is required, provider charges/sharing/deletion may apply, and unknown outcomes should never be auto-resubmitted. The PUT requirement and SDK limitation further clarify behavior beyond what annotations convey.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, and the cURL example is genuinely useful, but the block is padded with a sample signed URL, a base URL link, and a long boilerplate confirmation sentence. Several sentences restate the same points about the PUT flow.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does describe the return value (a signed URL at data.attributes.url) plus the follow-up PUT step. For a destructive, open-world tool it covers the key operational facts, though it omits return error/pagination behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents account, confirm, and secret_result_file, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds no per-parameter detail (e.g., what confirm gates or why the URL is kept out of model output), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: request a signed URL to upload a file to. It describes the mechanism clearly enough that an agent understands the intent. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling upload/ingest paths such as ingest_source or transfer_asset, so the agent has no routing help beyond the name.

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?

The description details the two-step flow (get URL, then PUT the binary) and notes that the SDK cannot make the PUT, but it never states when to choose this tool over ingest_source or transfer_asset. Usage is implied through the workflow rather than compared against alternatives.

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