Skip to main content
Glama

ProWoDo

by com.prowodo.backend

List attachments

list_attachments
Read-onlyIdempotent

List what is attached to a company or to one of its projects. An attachment is either an uploaded file or an external link (Google Drive, Figma, a web page); the kind field says which. Browse this list to see what is attached and decide what to open, then use that row's url — for links it is the link itself, for files a signed link that expires after 15 minutes, so there is no need to call retrieve_attachments just to get the link. Attachments can also be created over MCP with create_attachments (inline text, base64 content, or a link) and removed with destroy_attachments. To read what a text attachment says, call read_attachments. Requires the company_id path parameter. Filter with project_id for a single project, or project_id__isnull=true for what is attached to the company itself rather than to a project. Each attachment carries app_url, a deep link to its project's attachments page — null for company-level attachments, which have no dedicated page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only/idempotent, but the description adds critical behavior: signed URLs expire after 15 minutes, `app_url` is null for company-level attachments, and attachments can be files or links distinguished by `kind`. It also clarifies that retrieve_attachments is unnecessary for getting links, which is a useful operational detail.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, attachment types, URL expiry, no-need-for-retrieve, alternative tools, filtering, and app_url behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return concept (list of attachments with url, kind, app_url) and how it maps to other tools. It gives the agent enough context to invoke correctly, including edge cases like company-level attachments and signed link expiry.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load. It explains `company_id`, `project_id`, and `project_id__isnull` with real-world meaning, but omits `file_name__icontains` and pagination parameters (`page`, `page_size`). Some parameter semantics are covered, but not all.

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 clearly states the tool lists attachments for a company or project, with a specific verb ('List what is attached') and resource scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like retrieve_attachments, read_attachments, and list_taskattachments by explaining what this tool is for (browsing) versus others.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: browse the list to decide what to open, use the row's `url` directly (no need for retrieve_attachments), and names alternative tools for creation/destruction/reading. It also explains filtering with `project_id` and `project_id__isnull` for company-level vs project-level attachments.

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

All ProWoDo toolsInspect
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 clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.

Tool Count1/5

With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.

Completeness5/5

The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.

Resources