retrieve_taskattachmentsGet the metadata and download url of a single task attachment. To attach a new file, use request_taskattachment_upload. Each attachment carries app_url, a deep link to the drawer of the task it is attached to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that it returns metadata and a download URL, and notes app_url is a deep link to the task drawer, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not mention any side effects or error cases, but for a simple read with strong annotations, this is adequate.
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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, providing an alternative for related behavior, and adding an extra detail about the response (app_url). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Slight waste is the third sentence, which is optional but still relevant.
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 simple read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: retrieving metadata and download URL, and the app_url detail. It does not detail what metadata fields are returned or any pagination/error behavior, but given the simplicity and the annotations, it is adequately complete for selection and invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% per the signal, meaning the description must compensate for parameter documentation. The description does not mention task_id or pk, nor clarify which parameter refers to the attachment id versus the task id. Even though the schema itself includes some descriptions, the tool description adds no value for parameter understanding, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for semantics.
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 clearly states 'Get the metadata and download url of a single task attachment,' specifying the verb (get), resource (task attachment), and scope (single). It distinguishes from list_taskattachments by emphasizing 'single,' and from upload tools by contrast. The mention of app_url as a deep link adds specificity.
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?
The description gives one explicit alternative: 'To attach a new file, use request_taskattachment_upload,' which helps with a create/read distinction. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_taskattachments for retrieving multiple attachments, though the word 'single' implies the difference. No other when/when-not guidance is provided.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.