Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
esa MCP Server

esa MCP Server

Official
by esaio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get attachment file from esa

esa_get_attachment
Read-only

Retrieves an esa attachment and returns base64-encoded image data for supported images under 30MB, or signed URLs for other files.

Instructions

Retrieves an attachment file from esa with signed URLs. For supported images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, WebP) under 30MB, returns base64-encoded data. For other file types, larger images, or when forceSignedUrl is true, returns signed URLs.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "esa_get_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesAttachment URL. Can be a full URL (https://files.esa.io/..., https://dl.esa.io/...) or a path (/uploads/...)
teamNameNoTeam name (required). Use esa_get_teams first to see available teams.
forceSignedUrlNoIf true, always return signed URLs instead of base64-encoded images. Default is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.13.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: conditional return behavior based on MIME type, the 30MB threshold, and the forceSignedUrl override. It omits auth requirements and failure modes, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the retrieval action first and the return-format rules front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates well by spelling out the two possible response shapes and the threshold that selects them. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that teamName is effectively required despite having an empty-string default, nor any error behavior.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns extra by explicitly linking forceSignedUrl to its effect on the response format, which is more than the schema's terse 'always return signed URLs'. It adds nothing about the url formats or teamName semantics, but those are fully documented in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves an attachment file from esa') and immediately describes the two return modes. No sibling tool handles attachments, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear conditions for the two behaviors (supported image types under 30MB → base64; other types, larger files, or forceSignedUrl=true → signed URLs). It doesn't discuss prerequisites like team permissions, but usage context is otherwise explicit.

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