list_ticket_attachmentsRetrieve all files attached to a support ticket, including file ID, file name, and public URL.
List the files attached to a ticket, with their file id, file name and public URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Access token of a private project. Only needed without an API key, or for projects behind a private link. | |
| ticketId | Yes | Ticket whose attachments are listed. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the returned fields (file id, file name, public URL), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning ordering, pagination, or auth behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb, resource, and return payload in one pass.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and annotations carry the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain around result ordering and whether the list can be large/paginated.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (token, ticketId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files attached to a ticket') plus the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from write siblings like add_ticket_attachments or delete_attachment, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this versus the neighboring attachment tools (add_ticket_attachments, download_attachment, delete_attachment). Usage is only implied by the verb-resource pairing, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.