mcp-itglue

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List IT Glue Attachments

itglue_list_attachments

Read-onlyIdempotent

List attachments on an IT Glue record to get attachment IDs, file names, content types, and download URLs, enabling targeted file management or deletion.

Instructions

List the attachments on a record (document, flexible asset, configuration, etc.), with attachment IDs (needed for delete), file names, content types, and download URLs.

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": {
      "resource_type": "<resource_type>",
      "resource_id": "<resource_id>"
    },
    "name": "itglue_list_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page_size`	No	Results per page (default 50, max 1000)
`page_number`	No	Page number (default 1)
`resource_id`	Yes	The parent record ID
`resource_type`	Yes	The record type
`response_format`	No	Output format: human-readable markdown (default) or structured JSON	markdown

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`has_more`	Yes
`page_number`	Yes
`total_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. Description adds specifics on returned fields, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, no unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose and what the agent gets. It is complete for a read-only list tool with good annotations.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description adds minimal extra parameter info; the mention of 'attachment IDs (needed for delete)' provides context for the return value but not parameters themselves.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'attachments on a record', and lists the data returned (IDs, names, types, URLs). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like create or 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implicitly suggests using this before deleting an attachment by noting that attachment IDs are 'needed for delete'. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but context is clear enough.

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