Skip to main content
Glama

get_attachment

Retrieve email attachments from Gmail messages using message and attachment IDs to access files sent in emails.

Instructions

Get a message attachment

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageIdYesID of the message containing the attachment
idYesThe ID of the attachment

Implementation Reference

  • Shared helper function handleTool that manages OAuth2 authentication and Gmail client creation for all tools, including get_attachment.
        const oauth2Client = new OAuth2Client({
          clientId: credentials?.clientId,
          clientSecret: credentials?.clientSecret,
          redirectUri: `http://localhost:${AUTH_SERVER_PORT}/oauth2callback`
        })
    
        if (credentials?.refreshToken) oauth2Client.setCredentials({ refresh_token: credentials.refreshToken })
    
        return oauth2Client
      } catch (error: any) {
        return null
      }
    }
    
    export const launchAuthServer = async (oauth2Client: OAuth2Client) => new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
      const server = http.createServer()

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature or potential side effects. Annotations are absent, leaving the agent with no safety information beyond the tool name.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, and no extra information. Efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., attachment content, metadata, binary data), leaving a critical gap for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

Schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema alone sufficiently explains each field. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Get a message attachment', matching the tool name and resource. It's concise and unambiguous, though it doesn't distinguish from other 'get' siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_message or list_messages. No context provided for prerequisites or typical use cases.

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