tela

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Confirm a direct upload

confirm_attachment_upload

Idempotent

Finalize an attachment upload after its bytes are PUT, returning a serve URL and ready-to-embed markdown for adding the file to wiki pages.

Instructions

After the bytes have been PUT to a request_attachment_upload URL, return the stored file's serve URL + ready-to-embed markdown (for hosts that couldn't read the PUT response). Editor+. Then place the snippet with update_page/patch_page.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`upload_id`	Yes	the upload_id from request_attachment_upload

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`attachment`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.11.0Oct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / attachment / properties / share_path
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / attachment / properties / share_url
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / attachment / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "mime",
-  "byte_size",
-  "hash",
-  "url",
-  "embedded",
-  "download_url",
-  "markdown"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "mime",
+  "byte_size",
+  "hash",
+  "url",
+  "share_path",
+  "embedded",
+  "download_url",
+  "share_url",
+  "markdown"
+]

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (write, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world) and the description is consistent with them. It adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing what the call returns (serve URL + ready-to-embed markdown) and the 'Editor+' authorization requirement.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Dense and front-loaded: the precondition comes first, then the return value, then the follow-up action. It is terse and every clause carries meaning, though the parenthetical and trailing instruction make it slightly crammed into one sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. Combined with the permission note and the workflow chain (request_attachment_upload -> confirm -> update_page/patch_page), an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter (upload_id) is fully documented in the schema as coming from request_attachment_upload. The description adds no format or syntax details beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (confirm) and resource (attachment upload), and pins the exact precondition: bytes already PUT to a request_attachment_upload URL. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling request_attachment_upload by describing the post-upload step rather than the request itself.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use it (after the PUT to the request_attachment_upload URL) and names the follow-up tools (update_page/patch_page) for placing the snippet. The alternative path is also implied for hosts that can't read the PUT response, giving a clear routing decision.

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