Downloads files from a URL and uploads them to cloud storage buckets for automated file transfer and management.
通过 url下载文件并将文件上传到存储桶
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sourceUrl | Yes | 可下载的文件 url | |
| fileName | No | 文件名 （存在存储桶里的名称） | |
| targetDir | No | 目标目录 （存在存储桶的哪个目录） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions downloading from a URL and uploading to a bucket, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the file already exists. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: '通过 url下载文件并将文件上传到存储桶'. It's front-loaded with the core action and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (involving download and upload operations), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error cases, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively.
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?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'fileName', 'sourceUrl', and 'targetDir'. The description doesn't explain parameter interactions, formats, or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '通过 url下载文件并将文件上传到存储桶' (download a file via URL and upload it to a storage bucket). It specifies the verb (download and upload) and resource (file to storage bucket). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'putObject' (which likely uploads from local source), making it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'putObject' or 'getObjectUrl', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent with no explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.