Loading ToolBench
MCP server for interacting with Pinata IPFS storage and file management
The Pinata MCP server provides 6 tools with complete Zod schemas and descriptions. Naming follows verb_noun conventions (testAuthentication, searchFiles, getFileById, updateFile, deleteFile, uploadFile). However, descriptions lack depth regarding prerequisites, use cases, and when to select one tool over another. Parameters are consistently typed with enums where appropriate (network: public|private), but several lack range constraints (e.g., limit parameter unbounded). Output schemas are not explicitly documented, responses are wrapped in generic text/JSON format without stating the expected structure of returned data. Error handling is present but generic; error messages don't guide recovery or categorize errors as retryable vs. fatal. Security is properly handled with PINATA_JWT injected via environment variable rather than exposed as a parameter. Composition is reasonable, each tool has a single responsibility, though uploadFile combines multiple input modes (resourceUri vs. fileContent) that could invite confusion.
Delete a file from your Pinata account by its ID
Retrieve detailed information about a specific file stored on Pinata by its ID
Search for files in your Pinata account by name, CID, or MIME type. Returns a list of files matching the given criteria.
Verify that your Pinata JWT is valid and working
Update metadata for an existing file on Pinata including name and key-value pairs
Upload a file to Pinata IPFS. Provide either a file:// URI or base64-encoded content.
Output schemas not documented. Tools return generic JSON-serialized responses wrapped in text/content fields. LLMs cannot infer the structure of returned data (e.g., what fields does searchFiles return? what is the pagination response format?).
Descriptions lack actionable guidance on when to use each tool and what prerequisites must be met. E.g., updateFile description does not explain what happens if the file ID is invalid, or whether keyvalues completely replace existing metadata or merge with it.
searchFiles and uploadFile lack parameter constraints. The 'limit' parameter in searchFiles is unbounded (LLMs could pass 1000000); uploadFile's resourceUri and fileContent are both optional but descriptions do not clarify mutual exclusivity or explain what happens if both are provided.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | D | 58 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 26 | - | v1 |
Error responses are generic and not categorized. When an API call fails, the tool returns 'Error: <message>' without guidance on whether the error is retryable (transient timeout), user-fixable (invalid ID), or fatal (permission denied). Agents cannot reason about recovery.
uploadFile merges two input modes (resourceUri vs. fileContent base64) without explicit mutual exclusivity. Zod schema allows both to be omitted or both to be provided simultaneously. Description says 'use this if not providing resourceUri' but does not enforce it.
Destructive operations (deleteFile) lack a confirmation or dry-run mechanism. Agents can be tricked by prompt injection into deleting files without user consent.
Tool composition risk: searchFiles + getFileById both accept 'network' parameter (public|private) but there is no guarantee that a CID returned by searchFiles on 'public' can be used with getFileById on 'private', or vice versa. Downstream tool chaining may fail silently.