Find and retrieve attachments linked to a specific Autotask ticket by providing the ticket ID. This tool helps users access relevant files and documents associated with support or service tickets.
Search for attachments on a specific ticket
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticketId | Yes | The ticket ID to search attachments for | |
| pageSize | No | Number of results to return (default: 10, max: 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Search for attachments'. It lacks details on whether it returns metadata or content, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it might be overly minimal, but no extraneous information is present.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return format, pagination details beyond pageSize, or how to navigate results. For a search tool, this is incomplete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (ticketId and pageSize). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the verb ('Search') and resource ('attachments on a specific ticket'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like autotask_get_ticket_attachment (single) and other search tools.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like autotask_get_ticket_attachment or other search tools. The usage is implied but not clarified with exclusions or specific context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.