Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dpesch

MantisBT MCP Server

by dpesch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List Issue File Attachments

list_issue_files
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists all file attachments for a MantisBT issue, returning IDs, filenames, sizes, content types, and download URLs. Deprecated: use get_issue with the attachments selection instead.

Instructions

Deprecated: use get_issue with select: "attachments" instead — list_issue_files will be removed in 2.0.0.

List all file attachments of a MantisBT issue. Returns an array of attachment objects, each containing id, filename, size in bytes, content_type, and download_url. Returns an empty array if the issue has no attachments.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_idYesNumeric issue ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / issue_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  2. Addedv1.10.4
  3. Removed
  4. First observedv1.5.6

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond them: the exact shape of returned objects (id, filename, size, content_type, download_url) and the empty-array case. It doesn't discuss pagination or permissions, but neither is really applicable here.

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?

Deprecation and replacement are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by exactly the return-value detail an agent needs. No filler.

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?

For a one-parameter read with no output schema, the description supplies the return structure and empty-result behavior, plus the migration path. Nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and issue_id is documented there as 'Numeric issue ID', so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier format or scoping, which is the expected baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list file attachments of an issue) and immediately names the replacement tool and migration path. An agent can distinguish it from upload_file or get_issue without opening anything else.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says to use get_issue with select: "attachments" instead and gives a removal version (2.0.0), which is a precise when-not-to-use and alternative directive.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools