list_attachmentsList the files in the user's attachment library — id, filename, type, size.
Defaults to global company-context files plus files belonging to the current agent or chat. Set all_agents=True to list the user's whole library across agents. Use a returned id with read_attachment or attach_to_outreach.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all_agents | No | list the whole library instead of just the current agent's files. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / all_agentsAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "list the whole library instead of just the current agent's files.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / all_tasksRemoved value: -{
- "default": false,
- "description": "list the whole library instead of just the current task's files.",
- "type": "boolean"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds valuable behavioral context about default vs. expanded scope, which is beyond the schema, and confirms the fields returned. It doesn't mention permissions or rate limits, but for a simple read-only listing tool this is sufficient.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the core action and output fields are in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences explain scoping and follow-up usage without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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 one-optional-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states what is returned, how scoping works, and how to use the results. Minor omissions like pagination or limits are not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema covers all_agents 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that all_agents=True lists 'the user's whole library across agents' and specifies the default includes 'files belonging to the current agent or chat', providing slightly richer context than the schema's 'current agent's files'.
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?
The description states the specific operation 'List the files in the user's attachment library' and enumerates the return fields (id, filename, type, size). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like read_attachment and attach_to_outreach, which operate on individual attachments.
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?
It explains the default scope (global company-context files plus current agent/chat) and how to expand with all_agents=True. It also tells the agent to use returned ids with read_attachment or attach_to_outreach, giving practical downstream guidance, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternative listing/reading tools.
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.