Get attachment
get_attachmentGet a single attachment by ID.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Attachment ID |
get_attachmentGet a single attachment by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Attachment ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as return format, permissions, or error behavior.
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 efficient sentence with no waste, though extremely minimal.
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 simple one-param read tool with full annotation coverage and clear schema, the definition is adequate but adds little beyond structured fields; no output schema is present, so return behavior is undocumented.
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% (the id parameter documents 'Attachment ID' and format uuid), so the baseline is 3; the description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Clear verb+resource: fetches a single attachment by ID. Distinguishes 'single' from the sibling list_attachments, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage context is implied by 'single' vs. list_attachments, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing.
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.