Done Bear MCP

Attach File to Task

task_attach

Attach a file to a task by fetching it from an HTTPS URL: the server downloads it, verifies its size and type, and stores it. The model never sends file bytes directly. Pass a stable idempotency_key and reuse it for retries so a lost response cannot upload the file twice. 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`	Yes	HTTPS URL of the file to attach
`task`	Yes	Workspace-scoped task number, encoded as a string
`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; defaults to the URL's last path segment
`workspace`	No	Workspace id, slug, or name
`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	Default
`ok`	Yes
`taskId`	Yes
`attachment`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses several important behaviors beyond the annotations: the server downloads the file, verifies size and type, stores it, the model never sends file bytes, and retries are safe only with a stable idempotency key. It also documents limits on attachment count and file size.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the primary purpose, then the key mechanism, then idempotency guidance, and finally limits and allowed types. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the critical operational details an agent needs: how files are transferred, idempotency handling, per-task and per-file limits, and accepted file types. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not the description's responsibility.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful semantics for the url parameter (HTTPS requirement, server-side fetching) and idempotency_key (stable key reused for retries to prevent duplicate uploads), going beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific verb and resource: attach a file to a task. It also clarifies the mechanism by fetching from an HTTPS URL rather than sending bytes, distinguishing it from related task and attachment operations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a file is available at an HTTPS URL and the model should not send bytes directly. It provides constraints such as allowed types and size limits, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by resource and action, and each family (checklist, comment, label, project, task) follows the same shape. The main blur is between search and task_list's optional search filter, and convenience tools like checklist_done overlap with checklist_edit.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant convention is snake_case noun_verb (task_add, checklist_list, comment_remove), with consistent verb families across resources. A few outliers like get_context, search, and guide break the pattern, but overall the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this is a heavy surface for a task-management server and exceeds the 25-tool threshold. Several tools are convenience variants (task_done vs task_bulk_done, checklist_done vs checklist_edit) that could be consolidated or represented as parameters.

Completeness4/5

The core task lifecycle is well covered: create, show, edit, complete, reopen, archive, list, assign, and bulk operations, with full checklist and comment CRUD. Notable gaps are label deletion/renaming, project deletion, and search being limited to tasks, but these are minor for the apparent product scope.

Resources

Need Help?