Skip to content

fix: MCP uploadFiles 工具名称与行为语义不清晰,未明确区分 COS 上传与静态托管部署生效#680

Open
binggg wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
automation/attribution-issue-mojfrs8p-9n6l0h-mcp-uploadfiles-cos
Open

fix: MCP uploadFiles 工具名称与行为语义不清晰,未明确区分 COS 上传与静态托管部署生效#680
binggg wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
automation/attribution-issue-mojfrs8p-9n6l0h-mcp-uploadfiles-cos

Conversation

@binggg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@binggg binggg commented Apr 29, 2026

Attribution issue

  • issueId: issue_mojfrs8p_9n6l0h
  • category: tool
  • canonicalTitle: MCP uploadFiles 工具名称与行为语义不清晰,未明确区分 COS 上传与静态托管部署生效
  • representativeRun: atomic-js-cloudbase-hosting-deploy/2026-04-29T02-27-52-hy813n

Automation summary

  • root_cause: The uploadFiles MCP tool title "上传静态文件" and error message prefix "[uploadFiles]" were not clear enough to distinguish between COS (cloud storage) uploads and static hosting deployment. Agents might confuse the tool with general file uploads.
  • changes:
  1. Changed tool title from "上传静态文件" to "部署静态网站" (Deploy Static Website) - makes it clearer this is for website deployment
  2. Changed error message prefix from "[uploadFiles]" to "[静态托管部署]" (Static Hosting Deployment) - makes error messages more descriptive
  • validation:
  • Test storage-hosting-guidance.test.ts passes (validates description contains correct keywords)
  • TypeScript compilation passes (npx tsc --noEmit)
  • Skill tests pass (build-skills-repo, build-compat-config, skill-quality-standards)
  • follow_up: None - the fix is complete. The tool name uploadFiles is kept for backward compatibility, but the title and error messages now clearly indicate this is for static website deployment, making it easier for agents to distinguish from COS uploads (which should use manageStorage).

Changed files

  • mcp/src/tools/hosting.ts

@binggg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

binggg commented Apr 29, 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: 2026-04-29T03:12:28.486Z

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