Read the content of one task attachment by id (get the id from list_task_attachments). Text files return decoded text; images return a viewable image; other binaries return base64 when small. Files over 8 MB return metadata only, download them in the app. Caller must have visibility into the parent project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | The task id. | |
| attachmentId | Yes | The attachment id (from list_task_attachments). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantive behavior on top: return payload varies by file type (decoded text, viewable image, base64 for small binaries), an 8 MB cap that downgrades to metadata only, and a required visibility permission on the parent project. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot express.
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?
Three tight sentences: identity, retrieval pointer, return-format rules, size limit, and permission requirement. Front-loaded with the core action and no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description still explains what comes back for each file category, the size threshold that changes the response, and the access precondition. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.
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 100% and the attachmentId schema text already says 'from list_task_attachments', so the description adds no new meaning about either parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter burden.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read the content of one task attachment by id'), clearly distinct from the sibling list_task_attachments and from read_issue_attachment/read_document_content. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
Gives the prerequisite for obtaining the id ('get the id from list_task_attachments') and a fallback path for large files ('download them in the app'). It does not explicitly contrast against read_issue_attachment or other content readers, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.
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.