slack_get_file_infoFetch metadata and paginated comments for a Slack file by file ID, without downloading file content.
Get metadata about a Slack file (no content download).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page of comments (default: 1) | |
| count | No | Number of comments per page (default: 100) | |
| file_id | Yes | File ID (starts with F) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / properties / count / descriptionAdded value: +"Number of comments per page (default: 100)"Input schema / properties / file_id / descriptionAdded value: +"File ID (starts with F)"Input schema / properties / page / descriptionAdded value: +"Page of comments (default: 1)"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read; the description reinforces it by declaring metadata only and no content download. However, it discloses nothing about the surprising comments-pagination behavior implied by the page/count parameters, nor about rate limits or error cases.
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 short sentence with the resource and its key constraint front-loaded. No filler, no redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only safety profile is covered by annotations. What is missing is any explanation of the comments pagination parameters and their effect, which is the one non-obvious aspect of this tool.
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 all three parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and in particular does not explain why a file-info tool takes comment pagination parameters.
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 and resource (get metadata about a Slack file) and adds a scope qualifier ('no content download'). It is clearly distinct from list-style siblings like slack_list_files and from message-oriented tools, though it never names an alternative 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 parenthetical '(no content download)' implies a boundary but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative such as slack_list_files. An agent must infer the routing decision entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.