openproject-mcp

List attachments

op_list_attachments

Retrieve all attachments associated with a specific work package by providing its ID.

Instructions

List attachments on a work package.

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": {
      "workPackageId": "<workPackageId>"
    },
    "name": "op_list_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workPackageId`	Yes
`raw`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description implies a safe read operation but does not disclose any potential behaviors like pagination, ordering, or error handling. For a simple list tool, it is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action. It wastes no words, though it could be expanded slightly without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (list operation, 2 params, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks information about return values and the 'raw' parameter. It is barely adequate for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'on a work package' for workPackageId but does not explain the 'raw' boolean parameter. This omission leaves parameter semantics unclear.

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 'List attachments on a work package' clearly specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'attachments on a work package'. It distinguishes from siblings like op_get_attachment (get single) and op_upload_attachment, op_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., op_get_attachment for a single attachment) or any preconditions. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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