Moxie CRM MCP Server

attach_file_from_url

Download a file from a URL and attach it to a Moxie CRM record, such as a client, project, or invoice. Specify the target entity to organize files directly in Moxie.

Instructions

Attach a file to a Moxie record by providing a URL. The file will be downloaded and attached.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "attach_file_from_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	URL of the file to attach
`entityId`	No	ID of the specific entity to attach to
`fileName`	No	Name to give the attached file
`clientName`	No	Client to attach the file to
`entityType`	No	Type of entity to attach to (e.g., 'client', 'project', 'invoice')
`projectName`	No	Project to attach the file to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.2Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavior beyond the tool name: 'The file will be downloaded and attached.' This adds context that the tool fetches the URL content. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, whether it overwrites, or the response shape, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that communicate the core purpose and download behavior without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses no unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has six parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no context on how to specify the target record (e.g., the relationship between entityId, entityType, clientName, and projectName). This leaves the agent uncertain about which parameters to use together, making the description incomplete for effective invocation.

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 all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema, only referencing 'URL' which matches the 'url' parameter. Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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's action: 'Attach a file to a Moxie record by providing a URL.' This specifies the verb (attach), resource (Moxie record), and method (via URL). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from all siblings, none of which deal with file attachment.

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 description implies usage when a URL is available and a file needs to be attached, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks guidance on parameter combinations (e.g., which of entityId, clientName, projectName to provide), leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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