PlanfixMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

contact_file_list

List files attached to a contact by specifying the contact ID. Optionally filter to files mentioned in the contact description.

Instructions

Файлы, прикреплённые к контакту

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "contact_file_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Number of contact
`onlyFromDescription`	No	Flag to get files from description only	false

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`files`	No
`result`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral details. It only says 'files attached to the contact' without mentioning pagination, filtering, ordering, or access requirements. For a read-only list operation, this is a minimal disclosure.

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 phrase in Russian that gets straight to the point. No unnecessary words or repetition. However, it is quite brief, which limits the information conveyed.

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?

There is an output schema and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the description need not describe return values or param formats. However, it still lacks usage context and behavioral details that would help an agent decide when to invoke it. The description is minimally sufficient for a simple list tool 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (id and onlyFromDescription), including descriptions and an example for id. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it does not compensate or extend beyond 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 'Files attached to the contact' clearly identifies the resource (files) and scope (contact), distinguishing it from similar list tools for tasks and projects. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'list' or 'get'), relying on the tool name for action.

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 instead of sibling tools like task_file_list or project_file_list. The description only states what the tool returns without any context or exclusions.

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