Retrieve all attachments for a specific test result using its unique identifier, so you can inspect screenshots, logs, and files linked to that result.
Get all attachments for a test result. Retrieve all attachments for a test result using its unique identifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that—no pagination, no return shape, no auth requirements—and the second sentence merely restates the first.
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?
Two sentences, but the second ('Retrieve all attachments for a test result using its unique identifier') is a near-verbatim restatement of the first, adding only the trivial fact that an identifier is required. The purpose is front-loaded, but half the text does not earn its place.
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?
For a simple read-only getter with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: an agent knows what it returns and what it needs. It is short of complete because it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or error behavior when the test result has no attachments.
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 0% at the top level and the parameter is a nested object with additionalProperties=false, yet the description only says 'using its unique identifier,' which essentially echoes the parameter name. It does not explain the nested {path: {testResultId}} structure or confirm which identifier form is expected beyond what the schema already shows.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('attachments for a test result'), and the scope is scoped to test results rather than issues or test cases, which helps distinguish it from siblings like get_issue_attachments and get_test_case_attachments. However, it never names those alternatives explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the resource noun rather than stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling attachment tools (get_issue_attachments, get_test_case_attachments) or when to prefer this one. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.