Fetch Redmine attachment metadata by ID and optionally return text-file content, with a character limit to control response size.
Metadata of an attachment and, for text files, optionally its content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_chars | No | ||
| attachment_id | Yes | ||
| include_content | No | Return the content of text files |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail that content is limited to text files, but does not mention truncation via max_chars or other retrieval limits.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
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 tool with an undocumented max_chars parameter and no output schema, the description should explain truncation or content-size behavior. It omits this entirely, leaving the agent without enough context to call the tool correctly when requesting large text content.
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 only 33%, so the description should compensate, but it does not explain max_chars at all or clarify attachment_id. It only loosely maps to include_content by saying content is optional for text files, which the schema already states.
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 resource and scope: it returns attachment metadata and, for text files, optionally the content. That is enough for an agent to know what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from any sibling tool because no sibling in the list covers attachments directly.
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 description explains what is returned but not when to call this tool instead of alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for using include_content. The only guidance is implicit: content is available for text files only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.