Redmine MCP Server

redmine_get_attachment

Retrieve detailed information about a specific attachment in Redmine by providing its attachment ID. Get metadata such as filename, size, and content details for effective project management.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "redmine_get_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Attachment ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get detailed information', which is vague about whether it returns metadata (e.g., filename, size, author) or the actual file content. It does not mention permissions, return format, or error behavior, leaving critical ambiguity for an agent.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action ('Get') and resource ('attachment'). There is no wasted wording, and the key detail 'specific' is included to clarify that it refers to one attachment.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema, no annotations), but the description lacks essential context about what 'detailed information' includes or what the response looks like. An agent cannot infer whether it receives metadata or file content, which is a notable gap for a get operation with no output schema.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'id' as 'Attachment ID' (100% coverage), so schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the schema's clarity, but it does not enhance semantics either.

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 retrieves detailed information about a specific attachment, using the specific verb 'get' and resource 'attachment'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like redmine_update_attachment and redmine_delete_attachment by focusing on reading, not modifying.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need detailed info about an attachment, identified by its ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and the sibling set makes the read-only purpose self-evident.

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