Request a pre-authenticated GCS upload URL for direct file upload. Business tier only. The returned URL allows the client to PUT file content directly to GCS, bypassing the 32MB Cloud Run request limit. After upload, pass the gcs_ref to POST /api/v1/parse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| mimeType | Yes |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the returned URL is pre-authenticated and allows the client to PUT content directly to GCS, bypassing the size limit. It also notes the Business tier restriction and the follow-up step. However, it omits important details such as URL expiration, whether the URL is single-use, error conditions, or authentication specifics, leaving some behavior undocumented.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by constraints and the follow-up workflow. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is clear and highly scannable.
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 tool has 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains the high-level workflow but omits crucial details such as parameter meanings, response format (only mentions 'returned URL' and 'gcs_ref' without structure), possible errors, and the role of apiKey. This makes the description incomplete for a tool with no other structured documentation.
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 schema defines three parameters (apiKey, filename, mimeType) with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds absolutely no information about these parameters, not even mentioning them. This is a critical gap: the agent is left to infer parameter meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for a tool with this level of ambiguity.
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 function: 'Request a pre-authenticated GCS upload URL for direct file upload.' It identifies the action (request), resource (GCS upload URL), and scope (direct file upload). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like parseFileSecure by focusing on the upload step, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 gives clear usage context: use this for direct file uploads to GCS, specifically to bypass the 32MB Cloud Run request limit. It also outlines a workflow by mentioning the need to pass gcs_ref to POST /api/v1/parse after upload. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it misses a perfect score.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: parse, convert, estimate, formats, auth, auth-poll, account, upload, and feedback. The main ambiguity is that editDocument with an empty delta array behaves like a parse, overlapping with mcpParse.
Seven tools share a useful mcp prefix with PascalCase, but editDocument and getUploadUrl are camelCase and submit_feedback is snake_case. The casing and verb-style inconsistencies make the tool set feel less coherent than its overall design suggests.
Ten tools is a well-scoped size for this domain: authentication, account, upload, formatting, estimation, parsing, editing, conversion, and feedback are each represented. No tool feels redundant or like filler.
The surface covers the key parse workflow: get an API key, upload, estimate, parse, edit, convert, and check supported formats. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit API-key revoke action and some output/workflow steps being delegated to the SDK/CLI.
