Fetch every file attached to your Firefly III account, transactions, or bills in one call. Use this to review, export, or manage all attached documents directly from the AI bridge.
List all files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. 'List' signals a read-only operation and 'all' implies no filtering, but it does not state whether the result is paginated, what the returned items contain, or whether authorization is required.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the same brevity could have been used productively to clarify attachment-specific behavior.
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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves gaps: it does not clarify what 'files' means, what is returned for each attachment, or whether the listing is paginated. The agent has to infer too much.
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?
The schema has zero properties and 100% coverage, so there are no parameters for the description to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the tool takes no parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a resource ('files'), and 'all' conveys scope, so an agent can tell this is a broad read operation. It is less precise than it could be because 'files' rather than 'attachments' is used, and no sibling differentiation is provided.
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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of get_attachment, upload_attachment, or delete_attachment, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only usage signal is the bare phrase 'List all files.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.