Uploads a local file to a Frame.io V4 folder via presigned URLs and returns the upload status.
Upload a local file through Frame.io V4 presigned URLs and return its upload status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| folder_id | Yes | ||
| account_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at the mechanism (presigned URLs, implying a direct-to-storage transfer) and that it returns upload status, but omits required permissions/auth, file size limits, overwrite behavior, and whether failures are partial or atomic — all material for an upload tool.
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 tight sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. Nothing redundant.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It should disclose permission needs, size/type constraints, and what 'upload status' entails, none of which are present.
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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters (file_path, account_id, folder_id, name). The description only loosely implies file_path is a local path; account_id, folder_id, and the optional name are never explained. With zero schema coverage, the description should have compensated but does not.
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 (upload), resource (local file), and mechanism (Frame.io V4 presigned URLs), plus what it returns (upload status). An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema. Sibling tools are unrelated meta-tools, so no differentiation is required.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives, and no indication of when this is appropriate versus not. The agent gets a capability statement but zero routing context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.