Upload a local file, such as a screenshot, log, or PDF, and attach it to a Redmine issue using the issue ID and file path.
Upload a local file (screenshot, log, HAR, PDF…) and attach it to an issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | Filename shown in Redmine (default: the file's basename) | |
| issue_id | Yes | The Redmine issue ID to attach the file to | |
| file_path | Yes | Path of the local file to upload | |
| description | No | Attachment description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral context. It fails to disclose crucial behavioral traits such as file size limits, required authentication/permissions for mutation, or expected failure modes.
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?
It is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core functionality. It avoids filler while providing sufficient operational context.
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?
While the description clearly states the goal, it lacks depth necessary for a mutation tool, especially without annotations. It does not address potential limitations or behavioral constraints (like upload limits) that a sophisticated agent would require before execution.
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?
The description adds value by listing common examples of acceptable file types (screenshot, log, HAR, PDF), guiding the agent on what kind of input it expects for the 'file_path' parameter.
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 identifies the action (upload and attach) and the resource (a local file) tied to a specific entity (an issue). It distinguishes itself as an attachment action among several issue management siblings.
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 usage is implied—when a file needs attaching to an issue. However, it does not explicitly state any necessary prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where this tool should or should not be used compared to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.