Get pre-signed S3 PUT URLs to upload a large RAW + JPEG directly (avoids inlining bytes and bypasses request-size limits). PUT each file to its upload_url, then call verify_photo with the returned object_key values as raw_object_key / image_object_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool does not upload files directly but returns pre-signed URLs, and it explains the required follow-up call to verify_photo. It also explains why this approach exists (avoiding inlining bytes). This is substantial but could have mentioned expiration or permissions, so not a 5.
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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds essential workflow instructions without any padding.
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?
The description fully explains the tool's role in the upload process, including the pre-signed URLs, the PUT action, and how to pass the resulting object_key values to verify_photo. An output schema exists, so detailed return values are not needed here. The workflow is complete and actionable.
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 tool has no parameters (empty schema), so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and there is nothing to add beyond the schema.
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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pre-signed S3 PUT URLs') for uploading RAW + JPEG files. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the upload workflow and how it connects to verify_photo.
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?
It gives clear context: use when uploading large RAW + JPEG files to avoid request-size limits and inlining bytes. It also provides step-by-step instructions for using the returned URLs. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the rationale is implicitly strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource/action: verification creation (RAW+JPEG vs single-image), retrieval/listing, sharing, PSD export, upload helper, quota, tags, and marketplace listings are clearly separated. The closest pair — verify_photo and verify_content_credentials — is disambiguated by input type and forensic scope.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_, get_, list_, request_, share_, unshare_, verify_. Single-item getters use get_, collection getters use list_, and the verification verbs are uniform.
14 tools is well within the well-scoped range and each maps to a distinct operation. The count covers core verification plus sharing, PSD export, uploads, quota, tags, and marketplace without feeling padded.
The core verification lifecycle is complete: upload, verify, retrieve, list, check quota, share/unshare, and export PSD. Minor gaps exist — tag assignment is only done via web app/API, PSD download happens outside MCP, and there are no delete/listing-management tools — but they do not block the primary workflow.
