Fetch a Redmine attachment's metadata and content by ID, returning text directly or binary as base64 while omitting body data beyond the configured size limit.
添付ファイルのメタ情報と中身を取得する(テキストはそのまま、バイナリは base64。上限超は本文省略)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_bytes | No | ||
| attachment_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return encoding (text as-is, binary as base64) and truncation behavior when the size limit is exceeded. However, it says nothing about authorization requirements, error behavior for missing attachments, or what metadata accompanies the content.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action (retrieve metadata and content) before the format and truncation details. No wasted words.
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 needn't be spelled out, and the tool is simple (2 params). Still, with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition leaves the parameter contract and failure modes under-specified for an agent invoking it.
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%, so the description must compensate. It obliquely explains the size-limit behavior ('上限超は本文省略'), which maps to max_bytes, but never names that parameter or its default, and says nothing about attachment_id. The two parameters remain largely undocumented in prose.
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: retrieves attachment metadata and content. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling upload_attachment. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling, but the download-vs-upload contrast is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (permissions, whether the attachment must first be listed). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.