PlanfixMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

task_file_list

Retrieve files attached to a Planfix task by task ID. Optionally filter to files mentioned in the task description only.

Instructions

Файлы, прикреплённые к задаче

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": "task_file_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Number of task
`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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how the onlyFromDescription flag affects behavior, or any other runtime characteristics, leaving the agent to infer safety and side effects from the name alone.

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 short phrase with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It slightly sacrifices clarity by not being a complete sentence, but remains efficiently sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read tool with a complete schema and output schema present, the description gives the essential purpose but omits any behavioral context or usage nuance. It is minimally viable but lacks guidance on optional parameters or typical use cases.

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% with both parameters described in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Файлы, прикреплённые к задаче' clearly indicates the tool returns files attached to a task, combining a specific resource (task files) with an implied list operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like contact_file_list and project_file_list by naming 'task', though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as task_by_id or task_list, nor any exclusions. It simply states the tool's function without contextualizing it among siblings.

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