uploadcare_list_groupsList file groups in the project (paginated envelope: next, previous, total, per_page, results). REST API: GET /groups/.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Groups per page (max 1000). Default 100. | |
| ordering | No | Sort order, e.g. datetime_created or -datetime_created (descending). |
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?
The description adds pagination envelope details and the REST API endpoint beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradictions.
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?
Single, information-dense sentence without any extraneous text. Every word is essential for understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
Sufficiently complete for a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. Could mention that results contain an array of group objects but the pagination envelope is already described.
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 already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add further meaning or usage hints 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 it lists file groups and specifies the paginated envelope format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_files or get_group.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the tool's purpose is implied by its name and description. The simple resource listing doesn't require complex guidance.
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 and action (e.g., create webhook vs. delete file vs. get group). No two tools overlap in purpose, making it easy for an agent to select the correct one.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: uploadcare_create_webhook, uploadcare_delete_file, etc. This predictability helps agents infer tool functions from names.
With 11 tools, the server covers key areas (files, groups, webhooks, project) without being overwhelming. The count is well-scoped for a file management service.
The tool set covers core file operations (get, delete, list, store, upload) but has gaps: missing update/delete for webhooks, create/delete for groups, and update for files. These omissions may force agents to use workarounds.