Get a direct download URL for an email attachment by supplying the email ID and attachment ID.
Retrieve metadata for one attachment of a sent email (GET /emails/:id/attachments/:attachmentId). Returns a download_url for the file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The email id. | |
| attachment_id | Yes | The attachment id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior; 'Retrieve metadata' and the GET endpoint clearly indicate a read-only operation with no side effects. It also discloses a key observable output, download_url, which helps set expectations, though it does not mention auth requirements or rate limits.
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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action, scope, endpoint, and key output. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 two-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides the required inputs, the scope, and the main return value. It could be more complete with response shape or permission/error details, but an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.
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%, with id and attachment_id already described simply in the schema. The description adds the endpoint mapping and clarifies the attachment belongs to a sent email, but it does not add format, constraints, or additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 it retrieves metadata for one attachment and explicitly scopes the operation to sent emails via 'sent email' and the endpoint path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_received_email_attachment and list_email_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?
The sent-email context is implied through the wording and endpoint, which helps differentiate it from received-email attachment tools, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to use this tool over them. No exclusions or alternate tool routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.