Retrieve a person's attachment by ID from Follow Up Boss CRM to access files linked to a contact.
Retrieve an attachment by ID. (GET /personAttachments/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| extraQuery | No | Extra raw query parameters not explicitly listed above — e.g. FUB custom field filters like custom.ClosingDate on /people or /deals. Keys and values are sent as-is. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and endpoint, without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, any authorization requirements, error behaviors, or what the returned attachment object contains. This is a significant gap for a tool that mutates nothing but still needs context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief and front-loads the primary action and resource. It is a single sentence with the endpoint appended, containing no redundancy. However, it omits necessary contextual details, so it is concise but not fully functional.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two parameters (including a nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what an attachment is, how 'extraQuery' is used, what the response format is, or any special behavior. The agent would have to infer too much, making the description insufficient for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description adds virtually no parameter meaning beyond the schema. The schema already lists 'id' and 'extraQuery', with 'extraQuery' fully described. The description only says 'by ID', which adds little to the schema's explicit parameter list. Given schema coverage is only 50% (no description for 'id'), the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('an attachment by ID'), with an explicit endpoint. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_deal_attachment or get_evidence, relying on the name for context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or contextual conditions. The description is purely functional and offers no direction on selecting it among similar retrieval tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.