Attach a local file to an assignment as learning material or as a sample solution. Provide the assignment ID and absolute file path to upload PDFs, images, HTML simulations, or GeoGebra files.
Hängt eine lokale Datei an eine Aufgabe an – als Material (PDF, Bild, HTML-Simulation, interaktive Seite, GeoGebra-Datei …) oder als Musterlösung.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Absoluter lokaler Pfad | |
| aufgabe_id | Yes | ||
| als_musterloesung | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the file is local (not a URL) and is mutated onto a task, but says nothing about required permissions, whether existing material is replaced or appended, size/type limits, or what is returned on success.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and target, then enumerates accepted formats. The trailing ellipsis in the type list is slightly loose but no sentence is wasted.
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?
For a three-parameter upload with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it targets, and what file kinds are accepted. Gaps remain around return behavior and the image-upload sibling overlap, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is only 33%: only file_path is documented in the schema, and aufgabe_id plus als_musterloesung are bare. The description partially compensates by framing the operation as task-scoped and by explaining the sample-solution mode, but it adds no detail on the ID's format or on when the boolean flag should be set.
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 and resource: attaches a local file to a task, and explicitly names the two modes (Material vs. Musterlösung) with concrete file-type examples. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling scobees_upload_bild, which also handles images, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate the two.
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?
Usage is implied by the enumeration of file types and the two attachment modes, so an agent can infer this is the general-purpose attachment tool. However, no alternative is named and no when-not guidance is given, leaving the overlap with scobees_upload_bild unresolved.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.