Memos MCP Server

upload_attachment

Upload a file attachment to a Memos instance by sending base64-encoded content, filename, and MIME type, with optional memo association.

Instructions

Upload a new attachment.

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>",
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "upload_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`memo`	No	Associate with memo (e.g., "memos/123")
`type`	Yes	MIME type (e.g., "image/png")
`content`	Yes	Base64-encoded file content
`filename`	Yes	Filename
`instance`	Yes	Instance name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Upload a new attachment.' It does not mention side effects, permissions, overwrite behavior, or what happens after a successful upload.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than informative economy. The single sentence essentially restates the tool name without adding useful detail.

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 annotations, no output schema, and five parameters (four required), a one-sentence description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the final state of the attachment, or how the upload fits into the memo workflow.

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?

The input schema documents all five parameters with descriptions, including base64 content and memo association examples. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Upload a new attachment.' It is distinct from sibling list/delete attachment tools, though it does not mention the optional association with a memo.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus list_attachments or delete_attachment. The intended workflow context must be inferred from parameter names and sibling tool names.

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

Deploy Server