Skip to main content
Glama

ProWoDo

by com.prowodo.backend

Get an attachment

retrieve_attachments
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single attachment by its id: title, kind (an uploaded file or an external link), author, and url — the link itself for links, a signed link expiring after 15 minutes for files. File name, size and content type are filled in for files and empty for links. Use list_attachments first to find the id. To read what a text attachment says, call read_attachments. 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
bodyYes
kwargsYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds significant context beyond these: signed links expire in 15 minutes, file fields are null for links, and app_url behavior for company-level attachments. No contradiction with 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 four sentences long, each delivering meaningful information without repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and logically organized, with no wasted 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?

With no output schema, the description fully discloses return fields and behaviors (kind, url, file metadata, app_url). It covers edge cases (expiring links, null fields for links, company-level attachments) and references related tools, making it comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description clarifies the pk parameter by mentioning 'by its id' and hints at company_id via 'company-level attachments'. However, it does not explicitly define the role of company_id. Given schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates for the gap.

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's function ('Retrieve a single attachment by its id') and enumerates the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_attachments and read_attachments. It uses a specific verb and resource, leaving no ambiguity.

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 instructs to use list_attachments first to find the id, and read_attachments to read text content. This provides direct alternatives and when-to-use guidance, surpassing simple implied usage.

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