Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RunningHub MCP Server

RunningHub MCP Server

by tolatolatop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

upload_file

Upload a local file to the RunningHub platform and retrieve its fileName for use in node fieldValue. Supports IMAGE, AUDIO, and VIDEO types.

Instructions

Upload a local file to RunningHub platform. Supports IMAGE, AUDIO, VIDEO types. Returns the uploaded fileName for use in node fieldValue.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "upload_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesAbsolute path of the local file

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states basic upload function and supported types. Lacks disclosure on overwrite behavior, size limits, permissions, or failure handling.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences that front-load purpose and key details. No unnecessary words. Efficiently structured.

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 simple one-parameter upload tool, the description covers purpose, supported types, and return value. Minor gaps in behavioral details (e.g., error handling) but overall adequate given low complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema has one parameter with description. Description adds value by specifying supported file types (IMAGE, AUDIO, VIDEO), which are not in schema enums. This provides extra context beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states verb 'upload', resource 'local file to RunningHub platform', and supported types (IMAGE, AUDIO, VIDEO). Distinguishes from sibling tools (focused on tasks and nodes).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or context for usage beyond the basic action.

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