huly-mcp-selfhost

attach_file

Upload a base64-encoded file to a Huly issue by specifying workspace, issue identifier, and filename; optionally set the MIME type.

Instructions

Attach a file to an issue (base64-encoded content)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "identifier": "<identifier>",
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "contentBase64": "<contentBase64>"
    },
    "name": "attach_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filename`	Yes	File name, e.g. "screenshot.png"
`mimeType`	No	MIME type, e.g. "image/png"	application/octet-stream
`workspace`	Yes
`identifier`	Yes	Issue identifier to attach the file to, e.g. "PROJ-123"
`contentBase64`	Yes	File content, base64-encoded

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful operational context that content must be base64-encoded. However, it does not disclose permissions, upload limits, duplicate handling, or whether attaching creates a new attachment record.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Its brevity does not create structural clutter; missing details are a completeness issue rather than verbosity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a five-parameter upload mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and encoding but omits return behavior and operational constraints. With strong schema coverage and destructiveHint=false, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 80%, so most parameters are already documented, including identifier, filename, mimeType, and contentBase64. The description reinforces the base64 encoding but adds no further syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a file to an issue,' and adds the base64-encoding requirement. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as delete_attachment.

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?

It states what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites, size limits, or alternatives. The intended use is implied by the verb, but routing guidance is absent.

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

Deploy Server