Retrieve an Odoo attachment by ID and return its content as base64. Use when you need to access file data stored in the ERP.
Download an attachment as base64.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attachment_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 the one behavior the annotations don't: the payload is returned base64-encoded. It says nothing about size limits, failure modes, or whether the attachment must belong to a record the caller can access.
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?
One short front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is arguably too terse for a tool with zero parameter documentation, but nothing in it is redundant.
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 tool with no output schema, the base64 disclosure is the key piece of information and it is present. Missing are anything about response size, binary handling, or error behavior when the id is invalid or inaccessible.
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% and the single parameter is an undescribed integer. The description implies the id selects 'an attachment' but gives no format, range, or provenance hints (e.g., where attachment_id comes from). With only one obvious parameter, this is a minor but real gap.
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 ('Download') and resource ('attachment'), and adds the return encoding ('as base64'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling upload_attachment. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so full differentiation requires reading the sibling list.
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 reference to alternatives such as upload_attachment or get_record. The agent must infer the context 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.