Memos MCP Server

list_attachments

List all attachments from a specified Memos instance to review or manage files.

Instructions

List all attachments.

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": {
      "instance": "<instance>"
    },
    "name": "list_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`instance`	Yes	Instance name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the tool's name. It does not disclose permissions, connection requirements, response format, pagination, or the scope of 'all attachments.'

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, filler-free sentence with the core action front-loaded. It is appropriately minimal for a simple one-parameter listing tool, though it sacrifices explanatory depth.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It fails to clarify whether the required instance scopes the results, whether a connection must be active, or what the response contains.

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 the single 'instance' parameter is already documented. The description adds no extra meaning about how the instance parameter affects the listing, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'attachments,' which clearly separates it from sibling upload/delete operations. However, 'all attachments' is ambiguous given the required instance parameter: it is unclear whether the listing is global or scoped to one instance.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upload_attachment, delete_attachment, or list_memos. It also does not mention that connecting an instance first may be a prerequisite, which sibling tool names imply.

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

Deploy Server