Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HacknPlan MCP Server

HacknPlan MCP Server

by Lint111
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

download_attachment

Download file attachments from HacknPlan work items to your local disk for offline access or backup.

Instructions

Download a file attachment to local disk

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": {
      "workItemId": "<workItemId>",
      "attachmentId": "<attachmentId>",
      "savePath": "<savePath>"
    },
    "name": "download_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
savePathYesLocal path to save file
overwriteNoOverwrite existing file (default: false)
projectIdNoProject ID
workItemIdYesWork item ID
attachmentIdYesAttachment ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv7.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention that the tool writes to local disk (a destructive action), that overwrite defaults to false, or any required permissions. This leaves the agent unaware of side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose.

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?

No output schema, so the description should explain what happens on success or failure. It does not. Also lacks guidance on optional parameters like projectId, which may be needed in some contexts.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify savePath must be writable or that overwrite is optional.

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 clearly states the verb 'download' and resource 'file attachment to local disk', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_attachments (listing) and upload_attachment (uploading).

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_attachment (which may return content in memory) or list_attachments (to discover attachment IDs). No context on prerequisites or when not to use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools