createSandboxUploadUrlGet a presigned URL for uploading a file into a sandbox. Use for files larger than 10MB; smaller files can be uploaded directly via POST /v2/sandboxes/:sandbox_id/files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path where the file will be uploaded (e.g. /workspace/data.csv) | |
| sandbox_id | Yes | The sandbox's unique identifier |
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?
Annotations provide the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds the presigned-URL mechanism and the size threshold as useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose URL expiration, whether the sandbox must already exist, or side effects of generating the URL. With annotations present, the added value is moderate but not rich — a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence earns its place by providing the routing decision. Every word contributes either to what the tool does or when to use it.
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 simple 2-param tool with fully documented schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential calling decision: what it returns (a presigned URL), when to use it (files > 10MB), and its sandbox scope. Minor gaps remain: no output schema means the exact response shape is unspecified, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the generic createFileUploadUrl sibling — though the sandbox scoping largely handles that.
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 100% — both sandbox_id and path are already documented in the schema with meaningful descriptions. The tool description reinforces the upload context via the 10MB threshold, but adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Per calibration, baseline 3 applies when 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a presigned URL for uploading a file into a sandbox.' The sandbox scoping and the presigned-URL mechanism clearly distinguish it from siblings like uploadSandboxFile (which performs the upload) and createFileUploadUrl (generic, non-sandbox URL). An agent can tell this tool apart from its nearest alternatives without opening their schemas.
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 explicitly names the decision rule for this tool: 'Use for files larger than 10MB; smaller files can be uploaded directly via POST /v2/sandboxes/:sandbox_id/files.' This is model usage guidance — it states when to use this tool, when not to, and provides the exact alternative endpoint. Nothing is left to inference.
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.
Despite detailed descriptions, many tool names are highly ambiguous, with multiple tools covering the same conceptual actions (e.g., acceptClarityCaptureSuggestion vs. acceptClarityTeamAssignmentSuggestion, or the many deleteClarity*Interview tools). The set is so large that distinguishing between, say, listClarityFolders, listClarityProcesses, and listClarityProcessSummaries requires reading deep into descriptions, reducing agent selection accuracy.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., createClarityProcess, listAgents, deleteQueue), and is remarkably consistent across the 316 tools. There are only minor deviations, such as 'fileSuggestedClarityProcesses' (verb + adjective noun) and 'bulkUpdateCasePriority' (where 'bulk' could be seen as a prefix), but overall the pattern holds strongly.
With 316 tools, this server is extremely oversized for any single agent to manage effectively. The massive number of tools suggests poor modularization—many of these tools likely belong in separate, smaller servers focused on specific domains (e.g., Clarity, Pulse, Agent management). The cognitive load for an agent to choose from 316 options is very high, leading to frequent misselection.
The tool surface covers an extraordinarily wide range of operations across the Duvo platform: agents, runs, cases, queues, Clarity processes, skills, integrations, notifications, teams, and more. Most resource types have full CRUD and lifecycle management. Notable minor gaps exist (e.g., no tools for managing specific notification batch severities dynamically, and some interview management is missing batch operations), but for the platform's scope, coverage is impressively thorough.