Redmine MCP Server

downloadAttachmentAsBase64Content

Download any attachment from Redmine and receive its content encoded as Base64, ready for further processing.

Instructions

Download attachment file from Redmine as Base64 encoded content

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": {
      "pathParams": "<pathParams>"
    },
    "name": "downloadAttachmentAsBase64Content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pathParams`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.4Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the output is Base64 content, but gives no information about response structure, error handling, authentication requirements, size limits, or whether it is a safe read operation. Minimal behavioral context beyond the output format.

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?

The description is a single, clear, and front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately concise.

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 download tool, the description states the core action and output format. However, without an output schema or annotations, it lacks details about the return value's structure, potential errors, and the role of the filename parameter. The nested pathParams object is only understood via the schema. Adequate but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool description provides no information about the parameters (attachmentId and filename). Although the JSON schema has property descriptions, the low schema coverage (0%) means the description should compensate, but it does not mention which fields are needed or how they relate. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Download'), identifies the resource ('attachment file'), and specifies the output format ('Base64 encoded content'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like downloadAttachmentToLocalFile and downloadThumbnailAsBase64Content by naming the exact output encoding.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. The intended use is implied by the output format (Base64) and the tool name, but there is no direct guidance about choosing it over other download tools. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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

Deploy Server