My Awesome MCP Server

list_attachments

Read-only

Retrieve the files attached to a single ERP record by specifying its model and record ID, returning each attachment's name, type, and size. Use it to inspect documents linked to a specific record.

Instructions

List the files attached to one record (name, type, size).

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": {
      "model": "<model>",
      "record_id": "<record_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	Yes	Technical model name, e.g. 'res.partner'
`record_id`	Yes	One record id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.5.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 without the description. The description does add the return fields (name, type, size), which matters because no output schema exists, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or behavior on records with no attachments.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the returned fields appended. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, this is nearly complete, and it compensates for the missing output schema by naming return fields. Minor gaps are pagination behavior and empty-result handling.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both model and record_id documented including a format example for model. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ('List the files attached to one record') plus the fields returned, which separates it from get_attachment and upload_attachment in scope. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The scope phrase 'one record' implies you must already know which record you want, which is the main usage condition. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_attachment or how to discover record ids, leaving the choice to inference.

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