Skip to content

fix: MCP uploadFiles 工具描述不明确,导致静态托管部署被误用为云存储上传#639

Open
binggg wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
automation/attribution-issue-moize3r3-mv20lr-mcp-uploadfiles
Open

fix: MCP uploadFiles 工具描述不明确,导致静态托管部署被误用为云存储上传#639
binggg wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
automation/attribution-issue-moize3r3-mv20lr-mcp-uploadfiles

Conversation

@binggg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@binggg binggg commented Apr 28, 2026

Attribution issue

  • issueId: issue_moize3r3_mv20lr
  • category: tool
  • canonicalTitle: MCP uploadFiles 工具描述不明确,导致静态托管部署被误用为云存储上传
  • representativeRun: application-js-vite-hello-world-hosting-deploy/2026-04-28T18-47-53-asctvh

Automation summary

**

  • root_cause: The uploadFiles tool description incorrectly suggested using "relative paths" for publicPath, base, assetPrefix when deploying to subdirectories. This is wrong - when deploying to a subdirectory like /vite-test, the base path must be an absolute path like /vite-test/ (with leading and trailing slashes), NOT a relative path like ./. Using relative paths causes static resources to 404. Additionally, the tool description didn't clearly specify the cloudPath format or emphasize uploading the complete build directory.
  • changes:
  1. mcp/src/tools/hosting.ts:
  • Updated uploadFiles tool description to remove incorrect relative path guidance
  • Updated localPath parameter to emphasize uploading complete build directory (e.g., dist/), not just index.html
  • Updated cloudPath parameter to clarify format: relative to hosting root, no leading / (e.g., 'vite-test' not '/vite-test')
  • Enhanced buildUploadFilesErrorMessage() to include subdirectory deployment guidance when non-root cloudPath is used, explicitly stating that Vite projects should set base to '/subpath/' (absolute path with slashes), NOT './' or empty string
  1. **config/s

Changed files

  • config/source/skills/web-development/SKILL.md
  • mcp/src/tools/hosting.ts

@chatgpt-codex-connector
Copy link
Copy Markdown

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

@binggg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

binggg commented Apr 28, 2026

Attribution post-PR evaluation

  • visibility: internal identifiers, run ids, and private links are intentionally omitted
  • attempt: 1
  • eval_scope: primary_only
  • overall: FAILED
  • summary: at least one planned evaluation case failed
  • updated_at: 2026-04-28T19:17:24.172Z

Cases

  • [FAILED] — primary — evaluation failed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant