Skip to main content
Glama

upload_ticket_attachment

Attach a file or generated text to a ticket as evidence. Use a file path for existing files, or provide text content with a filename for new data.

Instructions

Attach a file to a ticket — the way an agent puts evidence on a ticket rather than describing it. Two ways to give it the bytes, and exactly one must be used. file_path reads a file from the machine THIS SERVER runs on (normally the agent's own machine, since the client starts this as a subprocess) and is the right one for anything that already exists on disk; it costs no context, so prefer it. text is for content the agent has just written — a log, a CSV, a diff — and needs filename alongside it. Laver refuses anything that is not one of application/pdf, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document, image/gif, image/jpeg, image/png, image/webp, text/csv, text/plain, and refuses a file whose BYTES do not match the type its name claims, so renaming a zip to .png fails at the server rather than here. 25 MB is the ceiling. A workspace over its storage quota is a 402, which no retry fixes. Uploading is a write: a read-only role is a 403.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoLiteral file content, for something the agent wrote rather than something on disk. Requires `filename`
filenameNoThe name to store it under. Required with `text`; defaults to the basename of `file_path`. Its extension decides the content type
file_pathNoPath to an existing file on the machine running this server. Mutually exclusive with `text`
task_uuidYesThe ticket's uuid, from list_tickets, get_board or search
content_typeNoOverrides the type guessed from the filename's extension
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses write semantics, server-side MIME type validation, byte-content matching enforcement, a 25 MB limit, 402 quota behavior with no retry expectation, and the context cost of file_path.

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 long but every sentence earns its place by adding constraints, usage preferences, or error semantics. It is front-loaded with the purpose and structured logically from usage modes to validation rules to failure cases.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers use cases, constraints, and failure modes thoroughly, but it does not state what the tool returns on success (no output schema exists). It also omits mention of the content_type parameter in prose, but the schema covers it. These are minor omissions in an otherwise complete description.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: the distinction between file_path and text, the requirement that text needs filename, filename's default from file_path, and how the extension determines content type. It does not mention the content_type override parameter in prose, but the schema already describes it, so this is only a minor 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 uses specific language ('Attach a file to a ticket') and clarifies the tool's role as putting evidence on a ticket. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_ticket_attachments, get_ticket_attachment, and delete_ticket_attachment.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance for each parameter mode: file_path for existing files on disk with a preference expressed ('costs no context, so prefer it'), and text for agent-written content needing filename. It also notes the 403 for read-only roles, implying when not to use the tool.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Developyn/laver-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server