Done Bear MCP

Manage Task Attachment

attachment

Destructive

Add a file to a task or remove one. action: "add" fetches the given HTTPS url: the server downloads it, verifies its size and type, and stores it, so the model never sends file bytes. Pass a stable idempotency_key and reuse it for retries so a lost response cannot upload the file twice. action: "remove" deletes the named attachment. Read a task's files with task_show and include: ["attachments"]. Limited to 10 attachments per task and 10 MB per file. Allowed types: images (jpeg, png, gif, webp, heic), PDF, CSV, Markdown, and plain text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	HTTPS URL of the file to attach. Required to add
`task`	Yes	Workspace-scoped task number, encoded as a string
`action`	Yes	Whether to attach a file or delete one
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`filename`	No	Display filename on an add; defaults to the URL's last path segment
`workspace`	No	Workspace id, slug, or name
`attachment`	No	Attachment UUID or prefix (>= 4 chars). Required to remove
`idempotency_key`	No	Stable key that makes retries safe: repeated calls with the same key create only one record and return the same id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`ok`	Yes
`action`	Yes
`taskId`	Yes
`attachment`	Yes	The stored file on an add; null on a remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses significant behavior: the server downloads the file rather than the model sending bytes, it verifies size and type, idempotency protects against duplicate uploads, and remove deletes the attachment. This is rich, accurate behavioral context and is consistent with the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently layers operational details, constraints, and usage guidance. Each sentence adds necessary information without padding or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's two-action complexity, the description covers the critical behavioral details: server-side fetching, idempotency, deletion semantics, limits, allowed types, and the alternative for reading attachments. An output schema exists, so not detailing return values does not hurt completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the effect of action values, the safety semantics of idempotency_key, and the distinction between url and attachment. It does not deeply explain every parameter like context or workspace, but the schema handles those adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Add a file to a task or remove one.' It states the two modes of operation and explicitly points to task_show as the tool for reading attachments, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete guidance on when to use add vs remove, explains retry behavior with idempotency_key, and explicitly routes read-only attachment access to task_show. It also sets boundaries with limits on count, size, and allowed file types.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Done Bear MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Task operations are clearly separated into distinct actions, and the resource tools (attachment, checklist, comment, project) are each tied to a specific object. The main ambiguity is between search and task_list, since task_list accepts a search parameter; descriptions help, but an agent could still misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

Task tools follow a consistent task_verb pattern, but other tools mix bare nouns with an action parameter (attachment, checklist, comment, project), use reversed noun_verb (label_create), or are bare verbs/nouns (search, guide). The set is readable but not uniformly patterned.

Tool Count5/5

15 tools is within the well-scoped range for a task-management server, and each tool covers a distinct area: task lifecycle, search, context, projects, labels, attachments, checklists, comments, and guidance. No tool feels redundant or gratuitous.

Completeness4/5

The task lifecycle is well covered: create, show, list, edit, complete, reopen, and archive. Minor gaps include no permanent task deletion, no label update/delete tool, and no project removal, but these are workable and do not block core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?