Commit a file uploaded via request_upload. Call this after the presigned PUT succeeds; the upload row expires after 1 hour.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| upload_id | Yes | upload_id returned by request_upload. | |
| workspace | No | Workspace slug. Optional, defaults to "temp". |
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 already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. The description adds useful context about the workflow step (after presigned PUT) and the 1-hour expiry of the upload row, which informs behavior beyond the hints. It does not explicitly state side effects or failure modes, but this is adequate given annotation coverage.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by crucial usage timing and expiry note. No wasted words.
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 two-step workflow, the description explains when to call, the dependency on request_upload, and the expiry constraint. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough context for the agent to understand the operation. Minor omission: it does not state what the tool returns, but this is not critical given the simple commit operation.
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%, and both parameters ('upload_id' and 'workspace') have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond referencing that 'upload_id' is returned by request_upload, which is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.
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: 'Commit a file uploaded via request_upload.' It uses a specific verb ('Commit') and resource ('file uploaded'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the companion tool 'request_upload.'
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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this after the presigned PUT succeeds' and warns about the 1-hour expiry. This tells the agent when to invoke it and implies that it should not be called before the PUT succeeds or after expiry, effectively differentiating from alternative tools.
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 operation: file CRUD (write, read, edit, delete), versioning (history, restore), search (grep, list with q), locking (lock, unlock), uploads (request_upload, finalize_upload), and activity tracking. Even similar tools like request_upload and finalize_upload are complementary rather than overlapping.
Tool names are lowercase and action-oriented, with single-word verbs (read, write, delete) and two compound verbs (request_upload, finalize_upload) following a verb_noun pattern. This is consistent enough to be predictable, though the mix of single words and compound words is a minor deviation.
14 tools is well-scoped for a versioned file management server. Each tool covers a necessary aspect of the domain—file operations, version control, search, locking, uploads, and activity—without unnecessary bloat or missing critical functionality.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of file management: create/write, read, edit, delete, restore, list, search, lock, unlock, upload/download (via request_upload/finalize_upload and read's download URL). The only potential gap is a copy operation, but that can be achieved with read+write. All workflows have no dead ends.
