Done Bear

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?

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: the server downloads and verifies the URL, the model never sends file bytes, retries are safe with a stable idempotency key, and hard constraints (10 attachments, 10 MB, allowed types) are listed. The destructive 'remove' behavior matches destructiveHint=true.

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?

A sequence of tight sentences front-loads the core action and then covers add/remove behavior, retry guidance, read alternative, and constraints. Every sentence adds operational value and there is no filler 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?

For a dual-action tool with a visible output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers all operational essentials: mechanics, constraints, retry semantics, allowed file types, and the sibling for reading attachments. Nothing required for correct invocation is left to guesswork.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters; the description enhances key ones by clarifying the HTTPS requirement, idempotency semantics, and what 'remove' targets. It doesn't exhaustively restate every parameter, but it adds meaning beyond the schema without needing to.

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 specific verb+resource pair, 'Add a file to a task or remove one,' and then disambiguates the two action modes. It also names the read alternative (task_show), making it easy to tell this attachment tool apart from the listed siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use add versus remove, how to make retries safe via idempotency_key, and points to task_show with include: ['attachments'] for reading files. This is direct when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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

All Done Bear 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

Most tools map to clearly distinct resources and actions: task lifecycle verbs, sub-resource tools (attachment, checklist, comment), and search are easy to tell apart. The only mild overlaps are search vs task_list's built-in search parameter and get_context vs task_list for recent tasks, but the descriptions give enough guidance to avoid frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Task operations consistently follow a task_verb pattern, but other tools use bare resource nouns (attachment, checklist, comment, project), plus get_context, guide, label_create, and search break the pattern further. The names are readable, but the convention is mixed rather than uniform.

Tool Count5/5

At 15 tools, the set sits at the upper end of the well-scoped range but each tool has a distinct responsibility: task lifecycle, search, sub-resources, project/label management, context, and guidance. None feel redundant, and the count matches the breadth of the task-management domain.

Completeness3/5

Core task workflows are well covered: create, read, update, complete, reopen, archive, list, and search, plus comments, checklists, and attachments. Notable gaps remain: labels only support creation, archived tasks have no explicit restore path, and projects cannot be deleted or archived.

Resources

Need Help?