mcp-movidesk

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

upload_ticket_attachment

Upload a local file to attach it to a specific ticket action. Provide the ticket ID, action ID, and absolute file path.

Instructions

Envia um arquivo local como anexo de uma ação de ticket (POST /ticketFileUpload). Requer um caminho de arquivo existente no filesystem local.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "actionId": "<actionId>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "upload_ticket_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Id do ticket
`actionId`	Yes	Id da ação do ticket à qual o anexo será associado
`filePath`	Yes	Caminho absoluto do arquivo local a ser enviado

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the requirement for an existing file path but omits critical details such as file size limits, error handling, authentication needs, or whether the upload is idempotent. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that are front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Every word is necessary and contributes to clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple 3-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and a key requirement. However, lacking annotations and an output schema, it could be more complete by mentioning return values or common error scenarios.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters; it only reiterates the file path requirement implicitly. No extra context for 'id' or 'actionId' is given.

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?

The description clearly states the tool sends a local file as an attachment to a ticket action, including the HTTP method and endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on CRUD operations for persons and tickets, none of which involve file upload.

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?

The description specifies a key usage condition: the file path must exist on the local filesystem. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though no direct alternatives exist among siblings.

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

Deploy Server